Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

OMGWTFBBQ

Moved to #Acronyms, as I believe this is an extension of that section. Please continue the discussion under Acronyms. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the policy, guideline, or SOP regarding disambiguation pages at all-capitalized initialisms (e.g. JOR or UO)? Do entries only belong on such a dab page only if their article has reliably sourced evidence that it is known by that initialism, or can it be listed simply by virtue of having the words that constitute that initialism in the title?

For example, the album Murder by Pride has no evidence it is ever referred to as "MBP". Should that article either:

  • not be listed since it's not known by/as "MBP", or
  • remain listed because "MBP" is a plausible search term for the entrant

I know the latter is a valid rationale for redirections, but does it hold water for entry on a disambiguation page? Lastly, if I'm asking a stupid question that's found somewhere else, please feel free to WP:TROUT me, and point me in the right direction. Thanks! — Fourthords | =/\= | 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: I believe that there should be cited evidence (on the target page) that the acronym is being used. It's not sufficient that it might be used by someone.
A much longer "answer" is the discussion in #Acronyms above. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is quite thought-provoking, in the light of the above discussion. I wonder whether the criteria for inclusion in a dab page should include anything from which a redirect could have a valid rationale. Otherwise we could get the situation where:
  • An article is created
  • A redirect is created, perhaps from an abbreviation not mentioned in the text, because someone considers it a plausible searchterm (see WP:R#KEEP item 5 "Someone finds them useful" as a reason for not deleting redirects).
  • A handful of new articles are created (perhaps years later) on totally different topics which are ambiguous with the abbreviation
  • A dab page is created
  • It is ruled that the redirect to the first article can't be included in the dab page
  • So the long-established pathway from abbreviation to article is lost because of the creation of new articles. The redirect has been deleted.
Does this seem reasonable?
  • And then perhaps consider the same scenario, without the period where the abbreviation was the only use of that string of letters? Does this argue us into having a more inclusionist approach to abbreviations etc in dab pages? Perhaps "If it could be justified as a redirect, then it can be justified as a dab page entry"? PamD (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Something that has come out of the #Acronyms discussion above is that currently WP:DABSTYLE "Page style" (part of WP:DAB) includes a guideline about content, not style. Specifically:

Include related subject articles only if the term in question is actually described in the target article. (For example, the Canton disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Flag terminology.)

I propose moving this guideline out of the "Page style" section. Does anyone have any suggestions where it should be? One option is to invert the logic and include it under "What not to include", probably under a separate sub-heading (as is everything else under "What not to include"), eg (emphasis here is only to show change, it would not be in the article):

Do not include related subject articles unless the term in question is actually described in the target article.

Does anyone have any objections, or suggestions as to exactly where it should be.

Note that the interpretation of this guideline may be the subject of some debate in #Acronyms - my intention here is to move the guideline, but not to change its meaning in any way. Thus I would either keep the wording exactly if possible, or invert it exactly as shown above. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've made the change described above. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fatigue

The above did look like this

Fatigue may refer to:

Weariness:

Other uses:

I would like to cut it to:

Fatigue may refer to:

  • Fatigue (medical), a state of physical and/or mental weakness in humans and other animals, a product of overwork and sleep deprivation, and a symptom of many illnesses.
  • Fatigue (material), the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to repeated loading
  • Fatigues, battledress

on the understanding disambiguation pages are to distinguish topics that have the same title but different subject. I'd appreciate guidance on whether this is an appropriate edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At least Fatigue (safety) seems like a viable target too. --Muhandes (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be linked to from Fatigue (medicine), not listed on the disambiguation page? This is not one of the meanings of "fatigue." There are only three. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not Fatigue (safety) is or should be linked from other pages, it should definitely be listed on Fatigue (disambiguation). Every distinct article or redirect titled "X (Y)" should be on the disambiguation page for the title "X". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Can someone point me to the part of WP:D that says that? Any thoughts on the other links? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Added question 04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.", WP:D. Apparently the proper title for that article is "Fatigue", but it requires a disambiguator because "Fatigue" is ambiguous. So "Fatigue (safety)" is the title, and the disambiguation page links to it to ensure that a reader seeking it can get to it easily. Can you point me to the part of WP:D that indicated its deletion? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I restored some of the deleted links because I did not find anything in WP:DABNOT which disallowed them and I'm accustom to seeing DAB pages err towards inclusiveness. --Kvng (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That's where we differ. I prefer short dab pages, just linking to the main article for each of an ambiguous term's meanings, rather than a catalog of Wikipedia articles employing the term. But I'll respect whatever consensus develops here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe WP:PTM applies. "Voter fatigue" is never referred to as simply "fatigue", or "the fatigue" so it is no more than a partial title match and should be avoided. The same applies to "Information fatigue" and the two articles related to "battle fatigue". --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If someone creates List of types of fatigue, that could be linked, but if they're not ambiguous with the title, they don't need to be on the dab page. We do tend to err toward inclusiveness where there's no consensus one way or the other about ambiguousness or lack of ambiguousness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: Ambiguity is pretty unambiguous. It's when a single term like "mercury" or "fatigue" has several different meanings. There is no ambiguity in the case of "fatigue" and "list of types of fatigue." They are two extremely different terms. And Fatigue (safety) is simply a subpage of Fatigue (medical); including it on Fatigue won't help in any way with disambiguation. The section from WP:D that you quote above

Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.

isn't an imprimatur to turn a dab page into a list of articles about a particular topic, it's just explaining the purpose of disambiguation. I guess I'm claiming we should only be disambiguating on disambiguation pages. And that is my reading of WP:D. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with keeping "List of types of X" off of a disambiguation page for "X" as a compromise for keeping all of the elements of that list off the dab. You will have to have a higher tolerance for drama than I have. And the quote above was in response to a question above, not to this line. But you didn't answer my question there. If Fatigue (safety) is a really a subpage of Fatigue (medical), it should be so merged and turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of that article, and after that happens then it should be removed from the dab page. As it is, it's not a subpage, but a separate article with the ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
One might consider adding {{lookfrom|Fatigue}}) and/or {{intitle|Fatigue}}), as described in MOS:DAB#"See also" section. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither Voter fatigue nor information fatigue is a kind of medical or material fatigue. If "fatigue" is linked in an article to refer to either of these, a person coming to the disambiguation page for assistance in fixing that link will get no help from the very short list of options set forth. bd2412 T 12:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry JHunterJ, I meant to say "daughter article" not "subpage." Fatigue (safety) is a daughter article of Fatigue (medical) and is entitled to its own article if it goes into too much detail for the main article. I have no problem with "List of types of X" or Mitch's excellent suggestions going onto a dab page, provided they're below, and clearly sectioned off from the disambiguation section. Such links would address BD2412's concerns immediately above, too.

So, may I suggest

Fatigue may refer to:

  • Fatigue (medical), a state of physical and/or mental weakness in humans and other animals, a product of overwork and sleep deprivation, and a symptom of many illnesses.
  • Fatigue (material), the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to repeated loading
  • FatiguesFatigues (uniform) or battledress

followed by {{lookfrom|Fatigue}} and/or {{intitle|Fatigue}}, separated from the disambiguation by a "See also" section header per MOS:DAB#"See also" section? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You've omitted Fatigue (safety). There is nothing in the disambiguation guidelines about excluding daughter articles, whatever those are. If "Fatigue (safety)" is incorrectly titled, that should be fixed, but until then (and possibly after), it appears to belong on the disambiguation page. Every distinct article or redirect titled "X (Y)" should be on the disambiguation page for the title "X" to ensure that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. (The descriptions are probably too long too, and the Battledress entry should be "Fatigues (uniform) or battledress", as we prefer the use of matching redirects where they exist.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy for Fatigue (safety) to appear below the "See also" section heading. But since it's not a fourth meaning of "fatigue" but just a daughter article employing the term in the first listed meaning (fatigue (medical)), it doesn't belong in the disambiguation section. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy for it to appear in the main list, since it is of the form "Ambiguous term (disambiguator)". If it's not an actual topic that would be titled "Fatigue", it should be renamed to a corrected title. Once renamed, it might be placed elsewhere in the disambiguation page, or removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Where do you get this rule from that in all articles titled X (Y), (Y) is a disambiguator? There is no disambiguating going on there. Someone decided to call it Fatigue (safety) when they could just as easily have called it Safety concerns related to fatigue. Just because it is titled in the form X (Y) is no reason at all to treat it as though it's a fourth meaning of X in the disambiguation list.

Maybe there is some rule somewhere that you're only meant to use X (Y) when you're disambiguating, please point me to it if I've missed it. If so, whoever named that article broke that rule, but that's no reason to compound things by forcing it into the disambiguation list as though it were a fourth meaning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? "(safety)" in "Fatigue (safety)" is a disambiguator, or else you're claiming that the lede can be correctly rewritten "Fatigue (safety) is a major safety concern in many fields, but especially in transportation, because fatigue (safety) can result in disastrous accidents. Fatigue (safety) is considered an internal precondition for unsafe acts because it negatively affects the human operator's internal state. Research has generally focused on pilots, truck drivers, and shift workers.", as if "Fatigue (safety)" in its entirety would have been the name of the article if no ambiguity existed. Please do move it to the correct title that it could have just as easily been titled if "fatigue (safety)" does not use a disambiguator, because if that's not a disambiguator, that title is simply wrong. Yes, the guidelines on naming articles WP:NC and the guidelines on disambiguation WP:D do instruct the use of parentheticals for only two cases: disambiguation (e.g., Sweet Dreams (1985 film)) and article on topic whose real-word titles include parentheses (e.g., Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)). Including it here until (unless) if is changed is not compounding the error, since claiming it is an error only on the disambiguation page does not reflect the consensus of titling the article. Skipping that consensus formation is introducing a new problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I've asked the person who started Fatigue (safety) to comment. [1] I'm sleeping now, then driving 300 k into the forest, so may not respond for a day or two depending on what kind of connection I can get. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole asked for my opinion.
I personally prefer dab pages that run towards "complete" rather than "brief"; if I have to click on one, I want to be certain of finding the article. Adding a link to, say, Fatigue (cancer-related) costs us little, but saves our readers the trouble of clicking on a much more general article to find the specific one they're after (assuming that they don't simply give up and assume that Wikipedia has no such article, since it's not listed). If the list gets too long to scan easily, then it can be broken up into sections: ==Medical==, ==Science==, ==Effects on people==, or whatever seems useful.
Fatigue (safety) was split out of Fatigue (medical) because IMO they are separate and almost unrelated topics (the only unifying feature is that both discuss tired humans). In particular, I expect that the safety article will be significantly expanded with even more information about second-order, distinctly non-medical safety effects, e.g., the airplane can't land because the air traffic controller fell asleep. I do not consider it a daughter article.
Additionally, the previous descriptions for CFS and neurological fatigue are non-neutral: Nobody knows the cause of CFS; it might not be an illness of the central nervous system. It could just as easily prove to be an illness of the endocrine system or the immune system.
Finally, I have proposed a merge of Neurological fatigue into Fatigue (medical), where it IMO belongs. Alternatively, it might be merged as a section into the main Multiple sclerosis article, since the term is only used for MS. (I also believe that the name is both unfortunately vague, since it could be easily misunderstood as the normal, post-signaling refractory period in a healthy nerve, and unfortunately precise, since it declares [in advance of proof] that the cause of the fatigue is definitely neurological, which it could be purely immunological.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Help! (RDF)

I have been trying, without success, to persuade the novice user Flomenbom that introducing a link from RDF to a draft article in his user space is not what is done on DAB pages. His argument to the contrary (that a link to that page is better than no link and better than a red-link) is plausible, and the only (rather feeble) riposte I can come up with amounts to ‘well, I’ve been around for a while and, no, we don’t do it that way’. (I was unable to find a specific policy or guideline to link to.) Perhaps you could bring your experience to bear, in one direction or the other? Ian Spackman (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking): Do not create links to user or wikiproject pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see WP:Self-references to avoid). Of course some quibble that disambiguation pages are not articles, but I think WP:DAB is clear that disambiguation pages disambiguate articles, not user pages, not the world-wide web, not non-article dictionary definitions. older ≠ wiser 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that’s just what I needed. Ian Spackman (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two proposed rule clarifications

I propose the following two points as additions to our current rules governing the designation of disambiguation pages.

  1. Compound disambiguation titles should be avoided
  2. Lists of lists are not disambiguation pages

Complete explanations are below. bd2412 T 02:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Compound disambiguation titles should be avoided

There are a number of compound disambiguation titles unnecessarily combining two distinguishable concepts without actually disambiguating multiple uses of the title phrase.

For example a hypothetical page presented as a disambiguation page at the title, Army boots and pants:

Army boots and pants may refer to:

A list of currently existing pages that present this problem can be found at Wikipedia:Disambiguation/Compound disambiguation titles.

Such a disambiguation page is generally improper because neither individual term on the page would be likely to be referred to by the title term. Furthermore, the title in this case is an unlikely search term, and in most cases is a less likely search term than the individual items listed. Some of the pages presenting this problem are pages that list members of collaborations like Lunt and Fontanne. Unless there are two separate collaborations by this name, it is not ambiguous at all, but is an unambiguous reference to the collaboration itself. It is unlikely that anyone would refer to either individual author by the name of the collaboration, and it is therefore incorrect to say, for example, that "Lunt and Fontane" may refer to Alfred Lunt, individually. There are also many instances of pages like Google and censorship or Jesus and history, containing links to pages broadly relating to the topics but generally not to pages with similar names. Such titles should instead be treated as broad concept articles containing links to the related articles in the context of outlining the concept.

Note that this rule does not apply to titles containing common "Foo and Bar" combinations where that is ambiguously used as the actual name of several different things, as in North and South or Cash and carry.


2. Lists of lists are not disambiguation pages

A number of pages at "List of" or "Lists of" titles are currently tagged as disambiguation pages (I have not yet asked for a list of "list of" disambiguation pages to be generated). In some instances, the contents of these pages are merely lists of lists, and are therefore not truly ambiguous.

For example, a page at the title, List of historic aviaries in Georgia, disambiguating between lists of historic aviaries in the country of Georgia and the state of Georgia, would be a proper disambiguation page. However, a page at the title, List of historic aviaries in Alabama, containing links to separate lists divided into northern, middle, and southern Alabama, or divided into chronological periods in Alabama history, or divided by different types of aviaries, would not actually be distinguishing any ambiguous concepts. Such a page is merely a list of lists, and should be moved to a "Lists of" title and categorized as such, and should not be tagged as a disambiguation page.


responses

  • With respect to (1), I do not see much of a problem. Let's look at Lunt and Fontanne. Apparently they did perform together under this moniker, so it is a very plausible search term. But the collaboration does not appear to have been so important to history that it deserves its own standalone article. Why proliferate needlessly when we have perfectly good and not overly long articles on Lunt and Fontanne already? So then the question is what to do with the link Lunt and Fontanne. Deleting it would be counterproductive and decrease the helpfulness of the project. Scrounging up an article to take up space there would be unnecessary cruft. A redirect is the type of thing that would make sense, but there is no "right" target, since Lunt and Fontanne are equally important halves of the duo. As a result, we settle on DABs of this type, and I really don't see that adopting any other option would make this better and not worse.
It is certainly true that DABs of this type which were created as the result of moves to clean up bad page titling (e.g. Ben and Mena Trott) or done to soft-delete an unnecessary article by turning it into a DAB (e.g., Rob and Amber) can probably be removed from the project with no harm. But, actually, I see very few of instances of this type in the list you posted. --  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With respect to your first point, we do not let DAB policy dictate what articles should exist and what their content should be. That is the tail trying to wag the dog. DABs exist in service of articles, not vice versa. If someone to believe, "DAB policy requires the creation of X article," he or she has developed an unhealthy view of the importance of DABs.

    And with regard to the second point, some judgment has to be exercised. In certain cases, DAB titles are the result of historical accidents. For instance, Dukes in Spain and Portugal was spun off from Duke in 2006. Spain and Portugal are Iberian countries with similar aristocracies and feudal systems, so somebody thought it would be a good idea to put them together. A few months later somebody thought it would make more sense to split the list by country -- so now what to do with the link Dukes in Spain and Portugal? Merely deleting it might break incoming links, and could potentially have adverse GFDL consequences and obscure page history. Normally we create a simple redirect in those cases, but, as with Lunt and Fontanne, there is no single appropriate target. The result is a DAB of this type. Sorry! But this, too, explains why your worry of a proliferation of Dukes of Spain and France or Dukes and Earls of Spain, and whatnot, is unfounded. It is not that somebody got up one morning and said, "Hey, it would be a good idea to create a brand new DAB for these two topics which already have separate articles."

    Looking back at page histories you will see more of these situations than you might think. Even though the North Carolina Cabinet and Council of State are two different things, it was spun off from North Carolina under the title North Carolina Cabinet, and eventually renamed North Carolina Cabinet and Council of State because somebody realized that, although half of the people listed in the article, including the Lieutenant Governor, "may be colloquially called 'Cabinet members'," in fact "as elected officials are actually members of the Council of State" and thus technically are not part of the Cabinet at all.

    So a little sensitivity to unique page histories will, I think, take you a long way to understanding why we have DABs under some of the titles we do. --  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, the articles linked on these pages are not ambiguous, and therefore nothing is being "disambiguated". However these pages came to be, and whether they should exist at all, they are not actually disambiguation pages. As for the objection that incoming links may be affected, we're one click away from finding out what links exist, and a few more clicks away from fixing them. Accidents of editing history are no reason to inaccurately characterize pages as serving a disambiguation function. bd2412 T 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On point 1: What we seem to need in some cases is something mid-way between a disambiguation page and a redirect! I had a look at the list and spotted Dunkeld and Birnam: two separate adjacent places, each with their own WP article, but referred to as a duo in the article Niel Gow and also on their own tourism website. It isn't a standard dab page; it isn't a redirect; if it was called an article it would be a stub and gain a ragbag of tags. It seems a useful entity - not least to stop someone from creating an article for "Dunkeld and Birnam" in future. Is it time to invent something new, or to recognise a different category of disambiguation page: a page which leads from a collective term to the two or more existing articles. A sort of forked redirect. The wording perhaps needs to be changed to "... refers to ... and ...", on one line, rather than the bulleted dab page format? But it needs some sort of tag to indicate that it is an acceptable entity and shouldn't be tagged as unsourced, orphaned, stub, etc. Treating it as a category of dab page would achieve this. PamD (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see a problem in having very short articles explain the relationship between conflated places. Some subjects merit encyclopedic coverage, even though there is little to say about them, and having an "article" at Dunkeld and Birnam would at least provide a place to explain why these two things are identified collectively (as opposed to, say, Dunkeld and Iverness), without incorrectly stating that "Dunkeld and Birnam" may be used to refer to Dunkeld alone (or worse yet, to Perth). bd2412 T 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • If you think it was referring to Perth, you may have been misunderstanding the Birnam article's title: Birnam, Perth and Kinross is not a list of 3 places, but a placename with a comma disambiguation to the unitary council area of "Perth and Kinross". I did suggest above that there needed to be a revised wording for these things, to say "refers to A & B" rather than "may refer to A or B". Be that as may, I've converted Dunkeld and Birnam to a brief article but fully expect to see it plastered with stub tags, labelled as an orphan, tagged for deletion as a dicdef, and similar fates from which dab status would have protected it! We'll see.PamD (talk)
  • Some of these compound terms seem to have been much requested - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Asset_and_Content_Management. If we removed the "dab page" at that title, sometime someone is likely to "helpfully" create an article at that title. There are a huge number of ghits for the compound phrase. OK, I've re-worded Asset and Content Management so it's correct. But do we leave the dab template? I suggest we should have a new template for cases like this: "This disambiguation page indicates that a compound topic is covered in two or more distinct articles.", keeping the same "if an internal link..." text or modifying it slightly. PamD (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC) On second thoughts I'm not sure whether or not the "Content" part of "Asset and Content Management" is the same as our Content Management, so have undone my changes! PamD (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that we may need some kind of intermediate status for articles on unambiguous terms that are commonly used together. Dunkeld and Birnam might be helped with an explanation of why they happen to be referenced in this way, while most adjacent towns are not. We might also use a hidden comment to explain why this is neither a stub nor a proper disambiguation page denoting multiple uses of the same term or phrase. However, this sort of page is less of a concern to me than the Cooking and eating utensils type of page, which probably should not exist at all and should have nothing pointing to it. As for Asset and Content Management, is it possible to write an article covering the concept as a whole? This goes back to the question, why are people, in their searches, thinking of this as a phrase that will take them to a single concept? bd2412 T 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ... and it was horribly incomplete even for what it tries to be, so I've added another link to it for now. Seems an area in need of more work - see strange stub at Kitchenware. Hmm, is this something to do with lack of overlap between Wikipedia editors and cookery enthusiasts (though I know one very serious cook who is also a serious Wikipedian...). PamD (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I suppose every such collocation has some reason for how it originated. Still, the phrase is not an ambiguous phrase in need of "disambiguation". I'd also like to point out that the list as originally generated had several hundred more entries, and I went through all of them to narrow it down to the 100 remaining problematic entries. bd2412 T 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. While Cooking and eating utensils might not be ambiguous in a typical sense -- there are several articles that might have relevant information for a reader interested in that topic. Perhaps we need a message with text similar to the soft redirect for {{wi}} such as Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for <title>. The following articles may contain related information:". older ≠ wiser 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that all of the discussion on the two points I raised is directed at the first point, relating to compound disambiguation terms. Does anyone have anything to say against the second point, that lists of lists are not properly labeled as disambiguation pages? Cheers! bd2412 T 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have nothing to say against it, I totally agree. Here's another example, Tax return which to me seems like a list. I couldn't think of a proper name for the list though, I'd appreciate suggestions. --Muhandes (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I probably agree also, but do we have any examples of the beast described in Point 2? I would like to examine a few specimens in the wild, if at all possible, before drawing any conclusions.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects/dab of nn subjects

We have a dab (with one item was a redirect) with two nn references:

The dab reads, "X, a song sung by [[Y]]" (bluelinked singer) and "X, the name of a program hosted by [[Z]]," a bluelinked article on a host who is barely notable, but we won't go there.

The main thrust IMO is to publicize program X (not the song, which is more of a coincidence and excuse for following dab rules instead of redirect rules).

What, besides WP:SPAM, can be used, if anything to preclude both. In other words, what prevents us from redirecting or dab-ing nn topics to notable ones that are "related" but not synonymous. Student7 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the nn subject mentioned on [[Y]] and [[Z]]? If it is, then the dab page exists, and the object should be (if the subject is non-notable) to remove the notices of it on [[Y]] and [[Z]]. If it isn't, then the dab entries can be deleted, followed shortly by the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If the song is the primary topic (as suggested since it was a redirect), it can be speedy deleted with {{Db-disambig}}, and the program added as hatnote.--Muhandes (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think my question has been answered. Non notable topics can be associated via dab/redirect to notable ones (if they are mentioned in the article. Both were). Sorry to hear that!  :(
My timing was a bit off. Looks like they will survive. I will remember that db-disambig for later (along with all the others). Thanks to both of you. Student7 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If they are noted on an article, they are "note-able". If they are truly non-notable, the mentions in the article space should be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC largely ignored at Talk:Corvette RM discussion

It appears that fans of the ship Corvette are quite adamant about not turning Corvette into a dab page, without regard to how much their position contradicts WP:D in general and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in particular. Maybe I'm wrong; see for yourselves: Talk:Corvette#Requested_move. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I could, and have taken it back off of my watchlist. It's discussions like that one that lead me to believe we should change the criteria to "There are no criteria. Consensus at any given title can be based on whatever the editors there decide to base it on." That would have the guidelines follow actual practice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Anyone else? Anyway, the larger problem is the one WP:JDLI tries to address. Perhaps it's time to try to get it upgraded from being just an essay? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that much of the problem is that the initial proposition was not for the dab page. Once the suggestion had been raised to shift the primary topic from ship to car, hackles were raised and lines drawn, and any suggestion that a dab page was a reasonable compromise was seen as part of the conspiracy. There are two useful lessons. One is that if it is known that an issue will be controversial it may be better to put the 'reasonable compromise' first. Then there is a better chance that the people holding either extreme position (however justified they might feel) will be seen as unreasonable, and people get a clear opportunity to vote for the compromise which they have not had in the corvette debate. I think it is now too late for that this time given the reaction that Born2cycle is receiving currently. But there's another point, which is that the significance of the 'base meaning' has been rather underappreciated in the primary topic discussion. It may be difficult to make a policy around it since words evolve their meanings and the base meaning may be totally obscure; after all, the intention is simply to help users. But the attachment to the original meaning can be strong, as this case shows. Often it is generational, cultural or even nationalistic, but it cannot be dismissed. A strong rational argument can be put up in defence of it in an encyclopedia, so it isn't just a case of 'I don't like it' even if the discussion degenerates that way. I'm with JHunterJ on this one. It's a bit like notability - we know why it matters and we have to have some common understanding of what it means, but sometimes we have to be guided by what people think is best for Wikipedia instead of arguing about a sometimes poorly expressed policy. --AJHingston (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a third lesson: When a natural disambiguation (like corvette and Chevrolet Corvette) exists, it is undesirable to try to change it. The entire question of disambiguation arises only when two subjects claim the same title; primary usage is a particular class of disambiguation in which one title has a null disambiguator. This wasn't broken, and there was no need to fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The third lesson is wrong. Otherwise, we would move Churchill (electoral district) to Churchill, since Winston Churchill is already "naturally" disambiguated, and Usa (Germany) to Usa, since United States of America is already "naturally" disambiguated. The actual third lesson is: having a "natural" disambiguation has no bearing on whether a topic is the primary topic for another title; a topic may have a natural disambiguation and the encyclopedia readership can still be best served if it is the primary topic for another title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No, of course we wouldn't. Look at Churchill (disambiguation); there are a dozen places so named, none with the necessary preponderance of usage over the others.
I did exclude the qualification that one naturally disambiguated page may be the obvious target for a redirect from the undisambiguated name. Since I wasn't talking about redirects, and the argument wasn't that Corvette should redirect to the car article, it seems a venial offense; but I sit corrected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course you were talking about redirects; the option that you claim against in your lesson is having Corvette redirect to Chevrolet Corvette (that is, the car is the primary topic for the title "Corvette", and the article about the car is correctly titled "Chevrolet Corvette"). This would analogous to having Churchill redirect to Winston Churchill or Usa redirect to United States of America. Nothing venial (nor unforgivable) about it; the lesson is just wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It takes an unusual degree of self-assuredness, not to say gall, to contradict me on what I was saying, especially on a subject I did not mention. I did not oppose making corvette redirecting to Chevrolet Corvette; I actively support it labelling our article on corvettes.
But I deduce from the tone of this that this page has a [[WP:OWN}}ER; I shall discount references to it (especially by JHunterJ) hereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You can talk about something without realizing or intending to do so. No gall required. No need to assume bad faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Third parties may value a reminder that this section began by discussing the proposal to make Corvette a dab page, not a redirect. As far as I'm concerned, it still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Difference between disambigs and list articles?

What's the distinction? For example, American Baptist and Church of St. John the Baptist are a disambiguation pages. Couldn't they just as well be called respectively "List of American Baptist sects" and "list of churches of St. John the Baptist"?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are navigational aids that resolve ambiguity when it exists between possible titles for distinct topics. List articles are articles; some lists are set index articles that list topics that share a theme as well as a coincidence of titling. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem of a title like that is that is tends to create unsolvable links, since not everyone who is identified as an "American Baptist" can be further identified as belonging to one of the particular organizations listed on the disambig page. Suppose, for example, that John Grisham wrote a bestselling novel, and noted therein in a single throwaway line that was never further expounded upon that the main character "was raised as an American Baptist". Suppose, then, that a Wikipedian were to write an article on the novel or the character that happened to mention this tidbit of information, and linked the disambig title in question. It would be impossible to "fix" the link because there is no correct answer. Any presumption that this character was a particular denomination of Baptist would be original research. Furthermore, it would be technically incorrect to link this as an intentional disambig term, because it is not, for example, a discussion of the phrase "American Baptist". This is the kind of situation for which I think WP:DABCONCEPT is made. If it is possible to write an article on the concept of an "American Baptist" which covers the primary links listed on the page, then it should be an article and not a disambig page. I see this arise in an even more stark context with pages such as Tourism minister. If one links to that page when discussing the "tourism minister" of a fictional country, or in a hypothetical context, the link becomes useless because no correct answer will ever be provided on the disambig page. Nevertheless, if I tell you that this fictional country has a tourism minister, you can probably picture what it is that they do, which is why the page itself should be an article on the concept. Of course, lists are a kind of article, but a page describing something conceptually and then listing types of that thing is even better. bd2412 T 22:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Some WP:DABCONCEPT candidates

Here are a few disambiguation pages which perhaps should not be disambiguation pages.

Cheers! bd2412 T 02:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have come across others which I thought at the time might be better as broad concept articles (although it might take a while to dig them up). It would be nice to keep a project list as these will surely come up often. Drug resistant tuberculosis was one I had on my list too. I came across Washington's Headquarters recently which might be better as a 'concept' article although I think perhaps making it a set index or a list would be an easier fix. Other thoughts? -France3470 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Bionic Commando seems to me to be another - it should be an article on the franchise. We could create a maintenance category, and add a cleanup-type tag to these pages which would put them in that category. That would save us the trouble of having to go list them separately every time we see one. bd2412 T 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Dry rub looks like it should simply redirect to spice rub. The other entry is merely one variety of that general concept. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently the page was originally an Urban Dictionary-style article on the term as a purported synonym for a handjob, since reduced to only the cooking-related sense. bd2412 T 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite a few potential ones in Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup; Consort for instance seems problematic as a dab and Pacification is one that seems to have returned to the cleanup cat almost annually (I tagged it once way back in 2008). I would be in favour of a new category for these types of article, something along the lines of Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles. Separating between these and regular cleanup would, in my opinion, be avantageous, as it is more targeted and specific. There is quite a bit of backlog at pages for cleanup, which I suspect is slowed by the inclusion of a number of articles which shouldn't be dab pages in the first place; leaving many people unsure about how to approach the cleanup. France3470 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've created {{Dabconcept}} to be used on such pages, and incorporated the category into it. Please feel free to tinker with the template. bd2412 T 04:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exception to primary topic?

See Talk:Duke of Wellington (again). A clearer primary topic could hardly be imagined, but still people are resistant to the idea of having Duke of Wellington point to the article on the (easily best known) Duke of Wellington. Same applies (presumably) to other similar titles. I suppose it's the same thinking that causes numbers to lead to articles on years, even though (in the case of small numbers, anyway) the years are not the primary topics. I.e. that a desire for consistency in certain sets of articles overrules the principle of helping people to get straight to the article they want. Is this something we accept, or is it just a case of special-interest groups getting their way? If it really is consensus, then perhaps it should be written into the guideline here, since it seems a quite significant deviation from what we currently say.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just come from there (too late!) so I'll ask here. What is so special about this "principle of helping people to get straight to the article they want"? Over there you wanted to change the format from the way every other peerage page works, and followed up by wanting to change every peerage page to match your decision there. All to try and save punters one click in their searching.
Why is that so important, or even necessary? If I typed "Duke of Wellington" in the search box I got four options; the fourth of which is (still) "DoW Arthur Wellesley". If I was looking for him, but didn’t know that was his name, and went to DoW there was a hatnote saying, "for the general and prime minister see Arthur Wellesley, DoW" (And if I didn’t even know that about him, the DoW page would have beeen a better destination anyway).
Why is that so vastly inconvenient that it is necessary to overturn the way the peerage project has been doing things for years? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lint

I have proposed at Talk:Lint that Lint be made into an article on the primary topic of fibers that collect in various places, and that Navel lint and Pocket lint be merged into it, with the remaining senses to be move to Lint (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 15:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"please keep {{disambig}} else interwiki bots malfunction "

I have run across a few surname articles that are incorrectly tagged as {{disambig|surname}}, but which have a message stating "please keep {{disambig}} else interwiki bots malfunction" (most recently I have seen this on Mäkelä and Hämäläinen. These tags create disambig links wherever someone discusses the surname, and these links must be routed through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects, even though the redirect target should not properly be tagged as a disambig page at all. This bothers me. Should we be misusing our tags because the bots have not been built well enough to handle this situation? Could we perhaps come up with some other tag that lets the bots know how to handle these pages without making links to them show up as errors in our count? bd2412 T 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree. If a bot is messing up - shut down the bot. Bots are not here to dictate how we edit. Simple approach - use {{nobots}} (or be more specific) on any page that bothers you. --Muhandes (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Bots adapt to Wikipedia; Wikipedia doesn't adapt to bots. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Except in Russia.--Muhandes (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to make it clear for posterity that this is more than idle chatter, I propose the following statement of policy on this issue: Unambiguous articles, such as those listing people who only share a common surname, should not be tagged as disambiguation pages for the sole purpose of assisting interwiki bots in making interwiki links.

Acronyms

I have recently been involved in some editing disputes about the inclusion of entries on disambiguation pages where the DAB page is an acronym and the target page did not mention the acronym. The pages in question are:

Details can be found on the Talk page and History for BSB, Backstreet Boys and MJ. In general, I remove entries from a disambiguation page if the target doesn't explicitly mention the acronym, citing WP:DABSTYLE, in particular "Include related subject articles only if the term in question is actually described in the target article." For acronyms, if the target article is a topic with which I am familiar, I might instead add the acronym to the target article if I think it is appropriate (and consistent with other Wikipedia policies). However the above-mentioned entries are causing me some angst. For BSB in particular, my deletion of the entry from the DAB page was reverted several times, on the grounds that it was a common abbreviation for the band. After discussion on the Talk page, I agreed that it was a sufficiently common abbreviation for the band, so (because nobody else had followed my suggestion to) I added the abbreviation to the target article (with a reference) - but that addition was reverted several times as being "unnecessary". I've tried to resolve the problem (of a link on DAB page to an article that doesn't mention the acronym, thus violating WP:DABSTYLE) on the talk pages, but it seems to me that the other parties are not interested in resolving the DABSTYLE violation, instead invoking WP:IAR and/or WP:COMMONSENSE. I know that IAR has its place, but it seems to me that in these cases DABSTYLE does not "prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and so should not be ignored. It seems to me that either:

  1. The acronym is common and reputably sourced, in which case it should be added to the article page, and the article page included on the DAB page (because readers may use the acronym to search for the topic); or
  2. The acronym is not common and/or notable and/or well sourced, in which case it should not be on the article page and the article page should not be on the DAB page.

I would appreciate some feedback from other independent editors on this. Either I am correct, and I need some support to convince editors of the above-mentioned DABs/articles; or I am wrong, and I need someone to explain to me where the flaw in my argument is.

Note that the bone of contention for the above-mentioned articles is not about whether BSB and MJ are valid (common, reliably-sourced) abbreviations - it's about whether BSB and MJ comply with DABSTYLE.

In addition to the specific above-mentioned articles, I have noticed a tendency for disambiguation pages that are acronyms to acquire links to articles that do not mention the acronym (example) or that mention that acronym with no further qualification or reference source (example). I wonder whether we should explicitly add something to WP:DABNOT that DAB pages are not lists of every possible thing that some acronym might stand for. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I go along with your view: either the abbreviation appears in the article and the dab page, or it isn't in the article and isn't in the dab page. End of story. Possibly neither of the Michaels should be listed at MJ - but WP:OTHERSTUFF surely applies to elements within articles as well as to whole articles for deletion. PamD (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • We don't include references (or external links) on disambig pages precisely because those belong in the article. If the acronym is notable, it should be in the article and cited there. If not, then it has no place in the disambig page. bd2412 T 16:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I completely disagree. First, a DAB is nothing but a glorified redirect anyway, and the standard for redirects is whether they are plausible search terms and helpful to users. There's certainly no rule that they must be mentioned at the target article (e.g., Michael Jordon → Michael Jordan, or, you know, Bi-winning → Charlie Sheen and uncountable others). As with redirects, "[k]eep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." (MOS:DABENTRIES.)
Second, this complaint is based on a thorough misreading of WP:DABSTYLE. DABSTYLE does not say that no entry should be given unless the exact term appears in the article; it says, "Include related subject articles only if the term in question is actually described in the target article." "Related subjects" are things like the example given: Flag terminology is related to Canton. Michael Jackson is not "related" to MJ; he is an example of MJ. This paragraph simply does not apply here; it and Mitch Ames are talking about two very different things. And I notice that the guide Mitch Ames is relying on is the brief overview DABSTYLE, not the full treatment MOS:DAB, where you would expect to find this important principle spelled out -- if in fact it existed.
Third, if a person comes across easily sourceable DAB links that are not currently reflected in the articles, and is struck with apoplexy at the situation, then WP:SOFIXIT. -- Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas, you raise some interesting points, which I'll comment on:
  1. There's certainly no rule that [redirect pages] must be mentioned at the target article.
    This isn't necessarily true. After following a redirect, Wikipedia automatically puts "Redirected from [...]" at the top of the page - so the name of the redirect is always shown to the reader. And (contrary to your assertion) WP:R#PLA says (with my emphasis):
    Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes.
  2. ... based on a thorough misreading of WP:DABSTYLE [which] does not say that no entry should be given unless the exact term appears in the article; it says, "Include related subject articles only ...
    This is a fair comment, and I admit that I had not registered the significance of "related subject". Your comment re DABSTYLE vs MOS:DAB is interesting. I suggest that the former (summary) should be a subset of the latter (full rules) - but that appears not to be the case. Perhaps a review of the relative contents of WP:DABSTYLE, MOS:DAB and WP:DDD is required.
  3. ...WP:SOFIXIT
    I tried "fixing" both the DAB and the target, and kept getting reverted. Discussions on the talk pages didn't help, which is why I brought it up here.
    Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Random articles that happen to have the same initials as an acronym do not belong on a disambiguation page and should be removed. This is different than pointing common misspellings or unique buzzwords at a target. If an editor is struck with apoplexy at that situation and can easily source the acronym, he should also WP:SOFIXIT by adding the information to the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case, there is nothing to fix. The DAB in question fully conforms to MOSDAB.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas, I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve or what you are suggesting. Should Mickey Jones also be added to MJ? Should all people be added to the disambiguation articles of their initials? Clearly, something should be added to a DAB page only if it is likely to be used as a target. If something is likely to be used as a target, it should probably be noted in the article, and a source should be provided. How else are you suggesting to determine which initials should be listed and which not? --Muhandes (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is true, at least probably in most cases. But it does not amount to what Mitch Ames seems to want, which is a rule stating: "No matter how useful to users, it is strictly prohibited to link to an article from an acronym DAB if the acronym is not explicitly mentioned in the article." That is not presently the rule, and it probably would not be a very helpful rule. So how to determine which people should be listed under their initials? The same way virtually everything else is determined: by seeking and developing consensus among editors, keeping in mind MOSDAB and that "the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily"! --  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas, I think that your statement regarding ".. what Mitch Ames seems to want ..." is a little unfair. What I wanted - and what I specifically asked for - was feedback on my interpretation of the existing rule; either to confirm it or to point out the flaw in my reasoning if I was wrong. Although most of the comments here seem generally to agree with my interpretation, you have rightly pointed out that I was ignoring the words "related subject" in DABSTYLE, and that the rule in question isn't mentioned in MOS:DAB at all. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. This whole conversation has somehow seemed a bit snippier than I customarily engage in, so my apologies if I came across a bit abruptly. That said, you did indeed refer to a "DABSTYLE violation" in creating "a link on DAB page to an article that doesn't mention the acronym," and suggested that "other parties are not interested" in fixing it, so I interpreted that more as making a criticism than as offering a suggestion and asking for feedback. --  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Editors working on dab pages need a set of rules against which to assess which items should be included. The rule stated above (plus an element of WP:IAR occasionally) is reasonable: if the abbreviation is sufficiently well known that a consensus of the editors who work on the article consider it worth mentioning, then it is worth including in the dab page. If not, then not. If you think a particular abbreviation should appear in the dab page, then add it to the article text if it is not present. If it gets challenged and removed by consensus there, then it has no place in the dab page. PamD (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation pages are not guides to slang usage and are not glossaries for all possible manners in which people may refer to subjects. Either there are verifiable indications that a subject is commonly referenced by an ambiguous term in the article on the subject or there is nothing to disambiguate in the context of Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the following comment by PamD|talk]]) 07:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC), from #OMGWTFBBQ below, to avoid unnecessarily splitting the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  • This is quite thought-provoking, in the light of the above discussion. I wonder whether the criteria for inclusion in a dab page should include anything from which a redirect could have a valid rationale. Otherwise we could get the situation where:
  • An article is created
  • A redirect is created, perhaps from an abbreviation not mentioned in the text, because someone considers it a plausible searchterm (see WP:R#KEEP item 5 "Someone finds them useful" as a reason for not deleting redirects).
  • A handful of new articles are created (perhaps years later) on totally different topics which are ambiguous with the abbreviation
  • A dab page is created
  • It is ruled that the redirect to the first article can't be included in the dab page
  • So the long-established pathway from abbreviation to article is lost because of the creation of new articles. The redirect has been deleted.
Does this seem reasonable?
  • And then perhaps consider the same scenario, without the period where the abbreviation was the only use of that string of letters? Does this argue us into having a more inclusionist approach to abbreviations etc in dab pages? Perhaps "If it could be justified as a redirect, then it can be justified as a dab page entry"? PamD (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that "someone finds them useful" needs to be qualified or justified. If the original redirected acronym isn't mentioned in the target article, either:
  • No other article uses the redirected acronym, ie it is not common, and it's not really "useful" at all - so we should delete it. (Perhaps the onus is on whoever thinks it is useful to justify that claim.) or
  • Other articles use the acronym (presumably as a link) and/or it is common and useful, in which case it ought to be mentioned in the target article.
Mitch Ames (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I would use "If it is a redirect, then it can be justified as a dab page entry (even if the ambiguous title does not appear in the article)." Redirects can be vetted through WP:RFD; skirting that to open the door to things that could be redirects but aren't won't reduce the arguments, since the sides will claim that it could or could not be justified as a redirect either. But it is simple enough to create the redirect and dab page entry, and if the redirect is later deleted the dab page entry can be as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
But it's not so simple: if there's already a dab page at the time that someone feels the need to create a redirect from a term ambiguous with that dab page, then they can't create a redirect but would add it to the dab page, and may find that their addition to the dab page gets deleted. If there wasn't an existing dab page, or any articles at the term in question (the abbreviation or other alternative title), then the editor would be able to create a redirect and defend it at WP:RfD. It just seems a bit inconsistent! PamD (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, they could create a redirect and add it to the dab page. The redirect just needs to have the ambiguous title and whatever disambiguator would be appropriate if that title were the title of the article. I have done so in the past. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Further to my comment of 10:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC), we need to balance (reason to keep) "Someone finds them useful" against WP:R#DELETE item 1 "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." For PamD's scenario, assume the article is Michael Jackson and someone had in the past created a redirect page "MJ". Now there are other possible MJ's so someone has created a disambiguation page "MJ (disambiguation", and Jackson is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Someone typing "MJ" (looking for something other than the pop star) into the search box would be sent (via the MJ redirect) to "Michael Jackson" and not find what they wanted. Putting {{about}} at the top of that article is one way to solve the problem, but a better solution would be to 'delete the redirect page "MJ", rename "MJ (disambiguation)" to "MJ" and then debate whether Michael Jackson belongs there. If other articles link to "MJ", that's a strong case for adding Jackson to the DAB page - and adding the acronym to Jackson's article. The change from a redirect to a disambiguation page doesn't hurt readers of any articles that link to MJ (intending Michael Jackson), because they can still easily find the pop singer. The diligent reader can improve Wikipedia for all future readers by disambiguating, as suggested by {tl|disambig}} on all DAB pages. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this discussion up here; I wrongly assumed that my inquiry at #OMGWTFBBQ was unique and nobody else would have a similar problem. I was obviously as wrong as I could be, based on this discussion. I've skimmed this section, and it seems to be hitting the same points I did, but I'd like to bring a new twist in.

I wanted to look up the computer game Command & Conquer: Red Alert; I eschewed those 28 characters, instead shortening my search by ~86% to "CCRA". I found this redirected to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, so I created a DAB page to list both articles. Mwtoews (talk · contribs) reverted this saying, "article does not assert that it is also known as CCRA". Okay, so CCRA can be redirected to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency without the article reliably citing that initialism, but a CCRA dab page cannot exist since both articles lack reliable sources for the initialism? Which is the proper SOP? — Fourthords | =/\= | 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, absent any indication that "Command & Conquer: Red Alert" is known as "CCRA", it's not "Wikipedia ambiguous" with "CCRA". OTOH, if you think it is ambiguous with "CCRA", you can add that info to the article, and (unless or until it's challenged & removed) create or expand the dab page; alternatively, you could create a redirect CCRA (video game) and target the video game article, and link to that in the new or expanded dab page (unless and until an RfD resulted in its deletion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency actually mentions "CCRA" in the article (albeit unsourced), whereas Command & Conquer: Red Alert does not, so I would also have deleted the latter from a disambiguation page because I believe that it violates the spirit of the rule that triggered this whole section. I would not have deleted the acronym CCRA from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency article just because it is unsourced; because I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so basically I'll take the article on faith. Likewise I wouldn't delete "CCRA" from the game article if someone were to add it without a citation. And if someone did add it to the game article I'd then happily accept it on a DAB page. My own personal "rule" - or implementation of the stated rules and spirit of Wikipedia (acknowledging Glenfarclas' disagreement with my interpretation of the DAB rule, but see #Do we need to update the guidelines? below) - is that the DAB page and the target article(s) should be consistent, ie an article linked from a DAB page should include the term/acronym of the DAB page (eg "CCRA") explicitly, but (for topics that I'm not knowledgeable on) I'll take it on faith that the article is "correct", even if unsourced.
So - if you do believe that CCRA is common abbreviation for the game, add it to the article (ideally with a ref), and then turn the CCRA page back into a DAB. If you believe that CCRA is/was not a common acronym for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, remove the acronym from the article. Not that no other article links to CCRA.
However, I do strongly believe that adding acronyms indiscriminately (ie without reliably sources indicating common usage) runs the risk of violating WP:NOT#DICTIONARY (of acronyms). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't approve of indiscriminate lists. However, I think the mindless rule of "remove if the initialism is not explicitly named at the top of the current version of the article" is a very bad one. It doesn't even take temporary vandalism into account!
My bottom line is this: anyone who doesn't have enough editorial judgment and common sense to sort out this issue without relying on this very bad rule should find something else to do on Wikipedia, and leave dab page weeding to someone who is competent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Some editors appear to agree with me. [2][3][4][5][6] Although, I acknowledge that others do not. [7] The fact that we are having this debate - rather than everyone telling me how wrong I am - suggests that "editorial judgment and common sense" are not sufficient; some specific guidelines and/or clarification to the existing guidelines are required. Hence #Do we need to update the guidelines? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw those comments.
IMO this always requires judgment, and it may require knowledge of the specific subjects at hand. If it didn't require judgment, we could have a bot do it. A bot is perfectly capable of checking to see whether the named initialism is present in the linked article. If that was even a significant fraction of the goal, we would be doing this automatically, instead of hoping that people will bring intelligence and discretion to the task.
I'm not convinced that it is possible to provide written guidance that will cover enough of the actual issues to be worth writing down, without insulting the intelligence of the people reading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to update the guidelines?

Based on all of the comments so far, I suggest that our disambiguation page guidelines need some work. In particular:

  • Should WP:DAB (which contains WP:DABSTYLE), MOS:DAB and WP:DDD be merged?
  • Perhaps there should be a clearer separation between content (what can be included) and style (bullet points, sentence fragments, one blue link etc). Most of my references have been to WP:DABSTYLE, but the dispute is actually about content. In addition to content and style, we also need to cover layout, eg as per the current MOS:DAB sections 2, 4, 5, 7.
  • WP:DABSTYLE includes the rule Include related subject articles only if the term in question is actually described in the target article. However DABSTYLE refers to the "Main page: MOS:DAB", and that main page does not include the rule. Surely the "main page" should contain all of the rules?
  • Should the rule Include related subject articles only if ... be Include entries only if the target article use the term, ie as I had (mis)interpreted it.
  • Should we mention acronyms explicitly? Ie something along the lines of: don't include acronyms unless the target article includes the acronym?

Any thoughts Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • In my view:
(1) DABSTYLE, DDD, and MOSDAB serve different functions and should not be merged. It is an interesting question, though, exactly what is the function of each, or at least of DABSTYLE (which is just a subsection of Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and MOSDAB. Now that I have reflected on it, let me revise the view I intimated above: I would think that WP:DAB is the principal guideline controlling the content of DABs, while MOSDAB should just cover issues of style -- not issues of content, propriety, and the like. The question of which pages should be linked from a DAB is not within the scope of "style." Thus:
(2) There is no need for this rule (about related-subject articles) to be in MOSDAB.
(3) I do not see any need for the new rule that is proposed here. It would be highly discontinuous with our practice in redirects, where the standard for retention amounts to being potentially useful and not causing undue confusion. The probable result of instituting such a rule would just be the deletion of a bunch of useful DAB links. Who benefits? Is there any big issue here that can't be resolved on a case-by-case basis through consensus among editors?
(4) That said, it would not be out of the question to strengthen somewhat the sparse language on this topic in WP:DAB by pointing out that links like these should not be created unless they will be useful, in that the subject is commonly known by its initials or acronym. MJ certainly doesn't need to be filled out with the likes of Mitchell Jenkins and Moira Jones. Isn't this more or less common sense, though? I have not seen signs of some epidemic that needs curing, still less with a straightjacket rule.
(5) P.S., Mitch Ames: if you're looking for a DAB-related style question to go on a crusade about, could you look into getting rid of those utterly pointless and moronic navboxes that we now have on every two-letter acronym? ;) I mean, is there anyone in the world who looks up DL and would conceivably have any reason to "navigate" over to CL, DK, DM, or EL?
--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we need to keep "content" and "style" separate. What about "layout" (WP:MOSDAB sections 2, 4, 5, 7)? Is that "content" or "style"? I think style, which is fine, because it's in WP:MOSDAB. But currently WP:DABSTYLE "Page style" (part of WP:DAB) includes a guideline about content, ie "Include related subject articles only if ...". We may disagree about the interpretation of that guideline, or how rigidly we should follow it, but it unambiguously about content not style. Consequently I propose that it be moved (unchanged) out of the Page Style section. Details below in #Proposal to move (but not change the meaning of) "Include related subject articles only if the term in question is actually described in the target article". Please continue any discussion on the topic of that move (with no meaning change) in the separate section below. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
When you say "I do not see any need for the new rule that is proposed here" I'm not sure whether your referring to "Include entries only if ..." or "don't include acronyms ..." or both. Could clarify please, so that I can address your objections meaningfully. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas asks (about not creating acronym links unless they will be useful, ie subject is commonly known by its initials) "Isn't this ... common sense ... I have not seen signs of some epidemic ..."
Sadly not everyone's idea of "common sense" is the same, which is why we have guidelines so that we don't have to have a debate every time the matter comes up. Even if we agree - and include in a guideline - "target should be commonly known by its initials", how do we verify that? Answer: by explicitly requesting that the target article state the fact (with the implied usual criteria for verifiability and notability) - which is basically how I have been interpreting (perhaps incorrectly) the existing "Include related subject articles only if..." and why I'm suggesting that it be changed.
And yes, there is an epidemic. Exampled I've edited recently: MJ, BSB, Pa, NV, Ive, AC. Mitch Ames (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas, you said: ... still less with a straightjacket rule. and ... go on a crusade about ...
Please stop with these negative connotations. I did not request a "straight-jacket rule" - I suggested changes to a rule to clarify it. So far as I can see, those changes are consistent with what most of the contributors to this discussion already think. I'm trying to get some consensus, so we can make some improvements to the guidelines so as to help editors create a better encyclopaedia. Feel free to disagree with my proposals, or point out specific flaws in my reasoning, but please try to be civil about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I can say I am having the same problem of having to explain over and over again why something should not be on a dab page, and I also see the necessity of a clear rule, in the lines of what Mitch Ames suggests. I'm afraid common sense leaves too much for interpretation in this case. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on specific update to the guidelines

Previously I asked for feedback about the DAB guidelines, and whether we should update them. Much discussion ensued - so much that I don't know whether there is a consensus to change the guidelines or not. (One related issue that did get resolved was that DABSTYLE previously included a guideline about content rather than style, and I have moved that guideline out of DABSTYLE (without changing its meaning).)

I still think that WP:DAB#Related subjects needs clarifying and/or adding to. Can I have a "show of hands" on whether we should change WP:DAB#Related subjects along the following general lines:

  1. Change: Do not include related subject articles unless the term in question being disambiguated is actually described in the target article.
    The first deletion here is the most important. It changes the meaning - refer Glenfarclas' second point here. In short, I believe my (mis)interpretation of the existing rule is what the rule actually should be.
  2. Add: Do not add articles to acronym or abbreviation disambiguation pages [eg MJ, BSB, Pa, NV, Ive, AC] unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation.
    Strictly speaking this is a subset of 1 above (where the term being disambiguated is an acronym or abbreviation), but given the number of unsubstantiated acronyms and abbreviations being disambiguated, I believe it is worthwhile. Whether or not the acronym/abbreviation belongs in the target article is not within the scope of this guideline. Normal article guidelines cover that.

The underlying principle behind both of these is that same as described in the second paragraph of WP:R#PLA.

I would appreciate relatively short responses, at least in the first instance. I want to get a feel for whether or not there is consensus for change. If there is general support, we can then work on the exact wording of the guidelines. If there isn't support for change I won't waste time on the details. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. This is how I clean up disambiguation pages currently, based on the current guidelines, and if there is question about whether the guidelines mean this, making it more explicit is a Good Thing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I strongly support #1. There is sometimes some common sense grey area with regards to organizations/institutions being known by an acronym. But in general I agree that if something is commonly known by an acronym, that can be mentioned somewhere in the article. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. How I read (and practice) it anyway, so clarification is a good move. --Muhandes (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, generally, for the reasons I've expressed at length above. The standard for inclusion should be approximately the same as for a redirect, namely, (more or less) being useful and not confusing or misleading. If there is a disagreement, it ought to be worked out on the talk page of the dab, not shoehorned into the articles themselves, as the proposed rule would tend to require. I mean, I could add the not-very-helpful sentence "Michael Jackson was sometimes referred to by his initials MJ" to Michael Jackson with an appropriate citation, but ought that really be a requisite step before he can be disambiguated at MJ? And if the editors of Michael Jackson think that sentence doesn't really improve the article and decide to remove it, must he immediately be delisted from MJ even though a reliable source does indicate that he was often called by his initials?
    I see no particular benefit, and several complications and drawbacks, from trying to create a hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rule here in place of the ordinary process of consensus. If the proposed rule simply expressed that dab entries should not be listed unless they were useful and not confusing (and, of course, able to be supported by reliable sources), that would be a different matter.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues

From the #Straw poll on specific update to the guidelines above, it appears that while not unanimous, there is support for a change to the guidelines. Thus I'd like to continue the discussion, by addressing Glenfarclas' oppositions:

Glenfarclas said
"The standard for inclusion should be approximately the same as for a redirect..."
My response
I agree. WP:R#PLA says (2nd para) "... all "inbound redirects" ... are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article ... to which the redirect goes". My proposed change is to make the DAB page consistent with that standard.
■Glenfarclas' reply: That's a somewhat mistaken view of what the Principle of Least Astonishment is about. The idea is that if you type something into the searchbox, you should not suffer the surprise and confusion of finding yourself on a page that appears to have nothing identifiable to do with what you typed. For example, if you type in the name of a radio program, you should not find yourself at the biography of a person, unless the article makes clear that he is, for instance, the host of the program. If you type in Indiana Asbury College and find yourself staring at the article for DePauw University, the article should tell you that DePauw "was originally known as Indiana Asbury University," so you don't sit there wondering what on earth the one has to do with the other.
Astonishment does not occur, however, when you type in something like George Bush Junior and wind up at George W. Bush, even though he is not actually a "Junior," the target contains no statement or source to indicate that he is sometimes mistakenly called "George Bush Junior," and in fact the word "Junior" does not appear in the article whatsoever. Likewise, Tony Blare takes you to Tony Blair without the article having to explain for you that "Blare" was a misspelling for "Blair." Don't read too much into WP:R#PLA; it is not actually true that all inbound redirects are mentioned in the target articles. Only when there is a likelihood of confusion or where it is necessary to make the redirect useful.
In the case at hand, it is hard to imagine how astonishment could possibly occur in the case of a disambiguation entry. If the DAB says, "MJ may refer to marijuana," and you click on it, there can be no cause for surprise. Shoving a sentence into the article to say "Some people refer to marijuana with the shorthand 'MJ'" benefits nothing.
Why do you encourage me to "not read too much into WP:R#PLA", but then insist that my proposed guidelines are "hard and fast rules"? I'm flattered that you think editors will may so much more attention to my guidelines than the existing ones. Perhaps I need to reword my proposals to make them less rigid - any constructive suggestions?
"[Adding] a sentence into the article to say "... marijuana referred to as 'MJ'" benefits nothing." On the contrary: it benefits the readers of the Marijuana article (to read/learn about the abbreviation), who may not have come via the MJ page. They won't know that MJ is a term for Marijuana if it is not stated on the article page. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas said
If there is a disagreement, it ought to be worked out on the talk page of the dab, not shoehorned into the articles themselves, ... I mean, I could add ... "Michael Jackson was sometimes referred to by his initials MJ" to Michael Jackson with an appropriate citation, but ought that really be a requisite step before he can be disambiguated at MJ? And if the editors of Michael Jackson think that sentence doesn't really improve the article and decide to remove it, must he immediately be delisted from MJ even though a reliable source does indicate that he was often called by his initials?
My response
DAB pages are not articles, so disagreements about the appropriateness of MJ as an abbreviation for Michael Jackson should be resolved on the article page, not the DAB page. If an editor of a DAB page were to notice that the abbreviation had been removed from the article page, and thought that it might be disputed, then it would be prudent to wait for the article page dispute to be resolved before updating the DAB page (and it may be worth noting that in the DAB guideline) - there is no deadline - but ultimately, the contents of the article should determine its existence or not on the DAB page. Note that I did not use the word "immediately" in my proposed guideline. (Please stop putting words into my mouth.) I'm proposing a guideline for contents, not a process.
■Reply: DAB pages have talk pages, and disputes about the content and style of the DAB belong there.
True, but if we had some sensible guidelines, there would be far fewer disputes about what goes on the DAB page. You could apply the same logic to all guidelines - but we don't throw them all away and debate the merits individually of every single style or content change, because we want consistency and guidelines help achieve that. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas said
I see no particular benefit, and several complications and drawbacks, from trying to create a hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rule here in place of the ordinary process of consensus.
My response
It's not a "hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rule" (they are your words, not mine), it's a guideline, just like all of our other guidelines, "to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts", so that we do not have to debate every single edit.
■Reply: The rule you are trying to invent ("Include entries only if the target article use the term") sure sounds like a hard-and-fast rule to me.
I've used the same style of wording as the existing guideline ("Do not include related subject articles ..."). Lest you point out that the existing wording is also mine, the original wording has the same degree of rigidity - "Include related subject articles only if ...". As I have mentioned before, we can tone down the wording (eg add "should") if you think it appropriate. I suggest that we should stop this banter about the "strength" of the rule or guideline, and focus on the intent. If you don't like the general meaning, fair enough. If you don't like the wording, offer an alternative "softer" version. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Glenfarclas said
If the proposed rule simply expressed that dab entries should not be listed unless they were useful and not confusing (and, of course, able to be supported by reliable sources), that would be a different matter
My response
And how do we determine what is "useful", and what is "supported by reliable sources" - given that DAB pages are not articles and don't have references? We look at the article. Ie inclusion (or not) on a DAB page should be determined primarily by the mention of the disambiguated term in the target article.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

■Reply: We do it by discussion and consensus. Contrary to your mistaken impression, the talk page of a DAB is a perfectly good place to work out disputes, cite sources, and so on. Whether or not they are articles is an irrelevancy. Redirects are not articles either and don't have references, so when there is a dispute about the propriety of a redirect, it gets discussed at RfD. The process works just fine.
The DAB page's talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss citations - for the simple reason that DAB pages don't have references. If anything is to be cited, it should be on the article page, so that is the logical place to have the discussion, because that is where the citation should end up. A reader (not an editor) should be able to check a reference without having to read the Talk page. Also remember the discussion about notability of an abbreviation etc rightly belongs on the talk page of the article because it may be of interest to those who know about the article page but are not interested in the DAB page. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, inclusion (or not) on a DAB page should be determined primarily by whether the entry will be useful and not confusing or misleading.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with goal (the entry should be useful) - but I disagree with how we measure that usefulness. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To help clarify this issue, one question we should ask ourselves is: Should a DAB page contain information about the disambiguated topic that is not in a main article? I believe the answer is No, because DAB pages are not articles, and the information on the DAB page (if it is not in a target article) cannot be referenced because DAB pages don't have references. One should generally not have to read a DAB page to learn some information about a topic. The statement that "[subject of target article] is known as [abbreviation/acronym]" is a piece of information - ergo if it belongs in Wikipedia, it belongs on the article page, not just on the DAB page. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle; the statement that "[subject] is known as [other name]" should appear in the article about the subject. "Should," however, does not mean that it will or must. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there are still countless facts known to humanity that are both true and published in reliable sources but do not yet appear in any Wikipedia article. So we need to apply a little common sense here, as we do with notability and other issues. If there is a reasonable chance that editors could find reliable sources to support the use of an abbreviation like "MJ" (and my own belief is that such sources do exist for both Michael Jackson and Michael Jordan), then the better policy is to leave these items on the disambiguation page. On the other hand, if there's no reason at all to think that anyone has ever referred to [subject] by [other name] in a reliable source, then by all means remove it from the disambig page; I can think of many instances in which I've done that myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If ... editors could find reliable sources to support the use of an abbreviation like "MJ" ... then the better policy is to leave these items on the disambiguation page.
Agreed, but in such cases, I firmly believe that one should add the abbreviation to the article page (with {{citation needed}} if necessary). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Dabs should be verifiable by checking the linked articles. The articles can be tagged for needed citations or other problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have reasonable support here - not unanimous, but sufficient to be deemed consensus - so I've made the change. Regarding acronyms, I've also included the suggestion to add the abbreviation/acronym to the target article, subject to WP:N, WP:V. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kavana (disambiguation) and Kavana

I wish to propose moving Kavana (disambiguation) to Kavana and moving the singer to Kavana (singer).

With so many different terms (including one of his albums) having the same name, I feel there's a strong case, but as the author of one of the disambiguated articles, perhaps I'm not unbiased. I could post at Talk:Kavana, but I'm not sure that the editors there are entirely unbiased either. Posting at Talk:Kavana (disambiguation) might be a good idea, but I doubt it'll attract much attention!

So, do you feel that such a page move is warranted? --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of different terms does not itself make a strong case. It is possible to have a bajillion topics ambiguous with one title and still have one of them be primary. In this case, there are few topics actually ambiguous with the title, plus some name holders and partial title matches and close-in-spelling titles. The move request, if you still want to pursue it, would be made at Talk:Kavana, with a pointer to the discussion added to Talk:Kavana (disambiguation) (and at Talk:Kavana (Judaism), which would appear to be your interest in the title). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (and thanks for your cleaning-up edits). I'll think it over. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the move request is reasonable, as I don't see why the singer is a primary topic. Some may not agree, and as JHunterJ said, you should pursue the move request at Talk:Kavana, see WP:RM on details of how to request this. --Muhandes (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I also see nothing that makes the singer "primary" over the rest. bd2412 T 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

<-OK, thanks. I'll start a RM request tomorrow, although I'd guess the singer is more likely to have fans than the other topics, which slightly undermines my usual faith in WP:BALANCE. Either way, at least the disambig page has been significantly improved, mostly by JHunterJ, so kudos to you and please do join me at Talk:Kavana. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The RM request is open at Talk:Kavana. Your opinions would be most welcome. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

other purposes of disambiguation pages

This page says:

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

That's not the only purpose of disambiguation pages. Sometimes someone wants to find out about the variety of uses to which a word is put and looks at a disambiguation page for that reason. And sometimes they're used for browsing, i.e. you're not looking for something specific but you're finding out what might be out there that you'd never heard of before. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly if you want to know the variety of uses to which a word is put, you'd be better off looking in a dictionary. Which is a good argument to put a box link to Wiktionary on dab pages where Wiktionary has, or is likely to have, an entry. So Greed (disambiguation) should have one but there is no need for one at Chariots of Fire (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I see the logic of what Michael Hardy is saying. Someone might want to go to an article like Phoenix or Mercury just to see what variety of things are called that, including things that would not be found in a dictionary (such as album and song titles). However, those pages can be arrived at by linking through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect. By contrast, virtually all incoming links to disambiguation pages intend to be pointed towards one specific meaning, and the person clicking that link from an article is looking for the sole meaning intended to be linked to by that article. bd2412 T 03:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
And someone might use a bread knife as a nutcracker. If the disambiguation pages, properly formatted to serve their purpose, happen to also be useful for other things, that's a bonus. It doesn't mean that the purpose of the disambiguation page itself has changed, though; it just means that readers are resourceful. What things are used for is not necessarily their purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The knife seller who becomes aware that people are using his bread knife to crack nuts might make sure to design it to also work for that purpose. bd2412 T 15:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As long as either the changes in design don't hinder its purpose (slicing bread) or he decides to change the purpose to be a generic tool, at the expense of not being tailored to any specific purpose. And I don't see those applying here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He Could Be the One

Is there something wrong with this? I linked to the album where the song is found, and it was reverted. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=He_Could_Be_the_One&oldid=430623074

Nothing wrong with that addition. I have restored the entry & cleaned up the page. --ShelfSkewed Talk 07:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Set index articles

List of people with the given name Darren has just been deleted with the reason "Per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." (and the same has happend for a few other (set index) articles). WP:NOTDIR and WP:SETINDEX contradicts each other? Christian75 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two more which I can think of were List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara and List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara. This is a good question though, why do we even have WP:SETINDEX if people will claim WP:NOTDIR in AfD? This individual split a huge number of these from other articles in order to later have them deleted at AfD. Perhaps this needs wider discussion at WP:VPP? --Tothwolf (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a good question. There are differences based on the type of list though. Lists of people by given name have always been dubious in my mind. IMO, lists of people with a given name should be categorically excluded from disambiguation pages unless the person is commonly known by only the given name in reliable sources (such as, for example, some monarchs or historical persons or some entertainers). Family names are a different matter and should never have been conflated with given names when MOS:DABNAME was formulated. Whether an article about a given name can include a list of people having the name is a matter for the Anthroponymy project to decide (and would need to be squared with WP:NOTDIR). Other types of set indices would need to be considered on a case by case basis. I think there may be some encyclopedic value to having a comprehensive list of mountains (or other geographic feature) that bear the same name. One distinguishing factor might be that such lists are at least theoretically finite, whereas a listing of people with a given name is open-ended. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference". I think the relevant guideline is WP:SALAT: what makes an acceptable encyclopedic list article? Lists should "contribute to the state of human knowledge" and be useful for our readers. I believe that ship and mountain set indices do so. —hike395 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to list all factors

  • Comment I came here to close the previous discussion as there had been no progress, and to remove the "under discussion" tags on the project page, when I noticed a new one had been added, and this new discussion started. While JaGa is correct in that there was strong support for the addition when proposed, there has, since the wording has been added, been some questioning of it, and there was opposition to the term in the more recent discussion above. I had proposed wording which incorporated the views of those who had taken part in the discussions, looking for what I felt was the consensus. Unfortunately there had been so much previous discussion, people had lost interest, and the proposed wording was not examined. I'll repeat the proposal above:

Current wording:

An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include:

Proposed wording:

There are no absolute rules for determining how likely it is that a specific topic is the one sought by readers entering an ambiguous term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. Factors that may be considered in discussions include:

These are not determining factors, and other factors may be considered on a case-by-case basis. If there is no clear consensus, or where there is more than one topic that could reasonably be expected to be the target of a particular search term, for example George Clinton, consideration may be given to using a disambiguation page instead of a primary topic.

The idea was to put all factors, such as "educational value", "recentism", "vital article", and "web traffic" together as a list of factors that people may use to consider which article is primary, without making any one factor more important than another, so that each case would be decided on its individual merits, but taking into account those values that users have expressed as worth considering. I personally don't agree with all the factors, but I am a firm believer in the consensus approach that Wikipedia uses, as I feel that is one of the strengths of this project, and so have included all the factors that had strong support - including "base meaning". SilkTork *Tea time 22:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A guideline like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is supposed to provide, you know, guidance. Providing a list of conflicting and contradictory factors all of which can be given any amount of weight anyone desires (including none) is not guidance, but, rather, fuel for JDLI rationalizations and is a recipe for dispute and discord. The current wording is problematic enough (see Talk:Corvette#Requested_move), but this is even (slightly) worse. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a comment; Isn't the purpose of the WP:Primary Topic (judging by where it is) to determine when disambiguation isn’t necessary? So the whole process of trying to decide for people what they are looking for seems to be on a hiding to nothing. I think I'm with older/wiser [8] on this; unless there is a blindingly obvious first port of call, the default position should be to disambiguate. Also, it seems to me there is a contradiction here anyway. WP is a tertiary source; it should follow usage, not try to define it. And the arbiters of word usage are dictionaries and encyclopaedias; yet the PT guideline currently puts more ephemeral measures (google hits, WP itself) on a par with (or even ahead of) them. To my mind if a word has a dictionary definition or an encyclopaedia entry, that is the primary meaning. I gather this has already been discussed... Xyl 54 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would support a proposal that puts less emphasis on 'page hits' and more emphasis on 'educational value' and 'base meaning', by which I assume you mean that an apple is a fruit and not a corporation. Is that what you are alluding to also, Xyl?--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that’s about the size of it; if the OED and the Britannica (for example) say an apple is fruit, then so should we, per WP:RS. I would probably add (to show how hip we are!) that a possibility like Apple Corp should have a “for the computer company see []; for all other uses see []” hatnote, but unless there is an obvious alternate choice the rest would be on a dab page. But I don’t know how necessary all this is; if I type in a search using “apple” (lower case, as you would) it gives me a pile of options; I’d have to be pretty obtuse to pick Apple over Apple Inc or Apple Macintosh if I wanted the computer company. We seem to be knocking ourselves out to do a lot of spoon-feeding. I’m also minded of the guidance on neologisms, which suggests articles might be created to increase the legitimacy of a term (it says usage, but the point is the same) and finds this unacceptable. I would think the same principle could well apply to new meaning for old words; if we don't follow authoritative sources in this we could end up where we don't want to be. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, conditional support following Xyl --Epipelagic (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • General support for this proposal. The importance of dictionary meanings of words is, to my mind, understated in deciding the primary topic. To paraphrase Ykraps at another discussion, I don't care how many Google hits the Ferrari 250 gets, what Google books says, or the traffic stats, California is still a US State. To that end, I would move base meaning up the list and refer to dictionaries as a source of meaning. Shem (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support from me too for the idea of listing the factors that are relevant, as providing a framwork for any discussion, and support too for ensuring that the concepts of base meaning and educational value are not seen as at the least important. Shem1805 puts the point well. As someone who made the point in the corvette debate, I know that the car was named after the ship. If I didn't, and got to the ship article by accident, I should have learned something. But if I wanted the ship and got the car, I should be at least mildly surprised. It is just not what I expect an encyclopedia to do. That is not saying that base meaning should be the only consideration, just that we should only disregard it for this purpose if it is agreed to be the right thing to do. But this is also about navigation, and as Wikipedia grows that is something we cannot ignore. Disambiguation pages are going to be more prevalent at least until there is something better, and if I look for John Smith I hope for a dab page, and not for someone to guess whom I am looking for whether based on what US school children are doing a project on, the first born, which article was created first, or anything else. I maintain the view that the corvette debate would have stood more chance of reaching some consensus if the discussion had been around the pros and cons of a corvette search taking people to a dab page, rather than a stand up fight between ship and car enthusiasts on who should be first. --AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Avoiding stand-up fights over which should be first...couldn’t agree more. The same thing happened at Ceres; a long row between classicists (she was a goddess!) and astronomers (it’s a planet!); finally resolved with a dab page. Maybe part of the problem is an over-emphasis on WP:PT; as I've mentioned above, the purpose of WP:PT is to help decide when a disambiguation page isn’t necessary; it hardly needs to be an imperative. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this were limited to ''There are no absolute rules for determining how likely it is that a specific topic is the one sought by readers entering an ambiguous term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move, I would support But we cannot list the factors that may be helpful without considering all possible situations, and some of these factors are -well- controversial at best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears to me that there are a number of issues here: Firstly, people's understanding of 'primary' which to me means 'first in importance' not 'most popular', hence my desire to keep 'educational value' in the guidelines. And secondly, the guidelines are just that. They are there to provide guidance and anyone seeking a definitive answer is going to be disappointed. Primary topic is currently decided by discussion amongst editors and to me that is right and proper.--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    OTOH, we have always avoided making "primary" meaning "prime importance" here. The goals have always been reader efficiency and least surprise. Adding some impossible-to-define "topic importance" rating will only increase the possible rancor on discussions, not decrease it, and have no actual benefit to the encyclopedia. The last point means that we should drop both "educational value" and all other criteria in the guidelines, since any editor who would like to see a primary topic other than the one(s) meeting the guidelines will simple ignore the guidelines (increasing the rancor on discussions, with no actual benefit to the encyclopedia). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If that were true, the 'primary topic' would be called 'most popular topic' (or similar) and the single guideline would read, "The one with the most page hits!" Furthermore, if you check the page history here [[9]], you will see that when the guidelines were first written, on the 5th April 2002, the importance of the topic was mentioned.--Ykraps (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
But"most popular' is not enough. A "primary topic" has to be overwhelmingly most popular, not just 51/49: sufficiently so that we justify bringing people looking for one meaning there in one click, at the expense of making everybody else use two or three. Such a subject usually is the most important. (As for the term: it's established by Wikipedia history; if you feel it important enough to abandon our old term and start over, the way to do that is WP:RM - or starting a mirror.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The evidence suggests that the established meaning of 'primary' within Wikipedia, has more to do with importance than popularity. This idea of using Google and page hits is relatively new having been added here [[10]] on the 28/07/2008. The importance of the topic has beed referred to in the guidelines since they were first written on the 5/04/2002.--Ykraps (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
So you have evidence that primary used to have more to do with importance than popularity, but has since then consensus has changed to something both more identifiable and more focused on the reader than on the editor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
While I don't completely agree with Ykraps proposed remedy, it is abundantly evident through the frequent questions about primary topic that "importance" or something similar IS commonly associated with the concept of primary topic. We (the disambiguation regulars) should stop trying to deny this. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, that was my proposal: remove the criteria entirely, since it is abundantly evident that the consensus that went into the guidelines is not observed on the individual pages, except by whichever "side" they happened to agree with. But the discussions would reach the same consensus (or lack thereof) without the criteria, so there is no utility left in them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hunter, it was you who told that me that Wikipedia had, "...........always avoided making "primary" meaning "prime importance"." I was merely demonstrating that that is not the case. Yes, the guidelines have changed but I disagree that consensus has changed; when the criterion regarding page hits, Google etc. was first introduced, it was to help, "........ indicate primary meaning"[[11]]. Primary meaning has always, and still does, mean primary meaning both inside and outside Wikipedia. Older ≠ wiser, I am not necessarily proposing to change anything. I am quite happy to use the criteria in the guidelines as a 'guide' to help decide each individual case. I just don't agree that popularity is more important than any of the other criteria. As I said earlier guidelines are just that; some people like to work with guidelines and some people need clearly defined rules.--Ykraps (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You keep drifting back to interrogation mode. If we're going there, you changed my "we have always" to "Wikipedia had always". I wasn't on Wikipedia or the Disambiguation Project in '02. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Interrogation? No, unless this is some newly invented Wikipedia definition of interrogation. I don't recall asking any questions of you or any other editor during this discussion--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
  • There is moderate support to implement this - five in favour, two opposed. Two supports are conditional on the criteria not being weighted.
For the conditional support, the wording could be amended to: Factors (in no particular order of priority) that may be considered in discussions include:.
For Born2cycle's oppose, would firming up the final sentence (before the redirect advice) be helpful? Currently: If there is no clear consensus, or where there is more than one topic that could reasonably be expected to be the target of a particular search term, for example George Clinton, consideration may be given to using a disambiguation page instead of a primary topic. Proposed: If there is no clear consensus, or where there is more than one topic that could reasonably be expected to be the target of a particular search term, for example George Clinton, a disambiguation page should be used instead of a primary topic.
For PMAnderson's oppose, how about moving up this sentence: These are not determining factors, and other factors may be considered on a case-by-case basis to before the examples, and amending it to: There is no agreed set of determining factors, and other factors may be considered on a case-by-case basis, however, some factors that may be considered in discussions include:
These changes would result in:

There are no absolute rules for determining how likely it is that a specific topic is the one sought by readers entering an ambiguous term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. There is no agreed set of determining factors, and other factors may be considered on a case-by-case basis, however, some factors (in no particular order of priority) that may be considered in discussions include:

If there is no clear consensus, or where there is more than one topic that could reasonably be expected to be the target of a particular search term, for example George Clinton, a disambiguation page should be used instead of a primary topic.

  • Oppose. Adding more criteria is pointless and will worsen the churn at move requests. If the criteria aren't being observed (and they're not), the criteria should simply be removed. No sense adding more drama where none is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yours is the only oppose. Reading your oppose, you are not happy with any criteria being listed. Is the proposed wording better or worse than the current wording - as both do list criteria? And if it is worse, in what way is it worse? SilkTork *Tea time 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    Please search for the word "Oppose" again. I see several. The improvement would be to remove the criteria and observe that the discussions at move requests use whatever criteria that strike the editors fancies, since keeping the criteria simple (maximize reader efficiency, minimize reader surprise) has had no predictable impact on the discussions. But I am not interested in defending my Oppose. If consensus (not unanimity) is for a change in the criteria, then it is. I work with the current consensuses too, even those I disagree with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think incoming links should have much to do with this. I suppose they could be used as evidence that everyone is assuming that the primary topic is something other than what lives at the title right now, but there could be other reasons for erroneous links. I would like this item to be removed, at least. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles

A discussion has been initiated regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages. Please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to addend that this discussion has serious implications for the disambiguation project, and I would strongly encourage members of this project to weigh in on it. bd2412 T 16:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I did add a note there pointing out that some of the "results" would end up with contradictions between the guidelines and should instead go to the village pump. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a quick reminder, this poll is scheduled to close at 02 June at 06:30 (UTC), which is about ten hours from this post; if you would like to weigh in, now is the time to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC a counter-proposal

I’ve said this stuff in a few places already here but I’m putting it in the form of a proposal, for discussion.

Proposal
To clarify WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I suggest we add the words:
"In determining the primary topic, the first consideration should be given to the primary meaning of any term, as established by authorative sources ie encyclopaedias, dictionaries, gazetteers, scientific catalogues, etc."

Reasoning
We already have had lengthy discussions on how to determine a primary topic, yet we are choosing to ignore the most obvious method of all, which is to follow an authoritative source.
We do this everywhere else; content must be backed by reliable sources, where more established media (books, publications, peer-reviewed items are favoured over more ephemeral ones (websites, self-published sources). As a tertiary source WP is innately conservative (content, article notability, etc. is determined by someone else having said it first), yet in this area we do the opposite. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc update themselves over time to take note of recent changes in usage, yet instead of following them, we are, by focusing on a current determination of a primary topic, seeking to take the lead in defining terms.
We have a step towards the proposed principle in the vital article notion, which gestures towards this primary meaning notion, covers 750 articles (in a 3.5 million article project) leaving a vast area open to interpretation (and therefore strife). By contrast Encyclopaedia Britannica has 65,000 entries, OED has 600,000 words, national gazeteers list tens of thousands of placenames, and so on; which ( I would have thought) provides a lot more room for definitive answers, and removes a lot more potential for argument. (I commend this proposal to the house...) Xyl 54 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The primary topic should in all cases be the one that the clear majority of readers expect to find at that title. In some cases this will match what authoritative sources use, but in many cases such sources are going to be more conservative than us by their very nature. Requiring this will lead to arguments about what is authoritative, whether being out of step with the majority of google hits means they are by definition not-authoritative or whether it automatically means that everyone else is wrong. There will also be disagreements on which of two sources that disagree is more authoritative than the other ("Britannica calls it X but Encarta calls it Y. No your both wrong - the New York Times calls it Z. The Chinese government calls it P so we must go with that!"). We title our articles so that readers can find them based on what they do look for, not what someone thinks they should look for - this is why we have redirects from offensive and inaccurate names. What authorities say is something to be considered, but should not be a determining factor in every case. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"More conservative than us": Well, that is begging the question, isn’t it? If WP is a tertiary source, we shouldn’t be changing our definitions until others do. If they are more conservative than us, there’s something wrong somewhere, n’est-ce pas?
And if "authoritative" is causing puzzlement, how about "definitive"? Dictionaries are the definitive arbiters of the meaning of words, surely? And they generally do agree with each other, far better than we do anyway.
As for what people expect, my reply is with BD2412, below. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Dictionaries are no more definitive arbiters of the meaning of words than encyclopaedias are the definitive arbiters of the meaning of concepts. And is the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Government of the Republic of China, the Royal Doulton Company or the Oxford English Dictionary the definitive source for the primary meaning of "China"? Wikipedia's great strength is in being up to date in a way that no paper publication ever can be, and the world changes constantly. We don't change our definitions before other people do, but we do change them before everybody does - for example how many traditional reliable sources would regard the biography of a 29 year old woman as the primary topic for the title Duchess of Cambridge? Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, you're seeing that as a strength; I'm seeing it as a weakness. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How on earth is being able to react to the world in real time a disadvantage!? Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This idea of pretending words mean something they don't is a nonsense (particularly in an encyclopaedia). I too have already said plenty the subject here [[12]] and here [[13]]. I cannot see that there will be a big difference between various encyclopaedias, so that argument doesn't hold much water with me.--Ykraps (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you to want base primary topic decisions solely on reference books organized many years ago when we have access to up-to-date information, as well as to data specific to Wiki's readership? It sounds curmudgeonly. Kauffner (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How about because they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?
And "curmudgeonly"? Why you young whippersnapper! (If only I was ten years younger...!) Xyl 54 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That reputation is why we use them to verify content, but page titles are not about content, but about where people expect to find that content (which is not necessarily the same as where they should find that content). Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. The primary topic should be whatever readers would be most likely to expect to find at a given title. Most readers probably do not consult the authorities first to find ought what should be there. bd2412 T 15:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of what people expect; most people have an idea of what a word means; if not they would look in a dictionary to check, not do a google search. Having a term here that corresponds to a dictionary term wouldn’t be the surprise, it’s the having something else. To most people (I would have thought) a ford is a river crossing; it’s only on WP that it is, in fact, a motor company. Go figure...Xyl 54 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Because dictionaries and encyclopaedias are not the same thing. If I want to know about a word, I look in a dictionary. If I want to know about the concept a word represents I look in an encyclopaedia (see also use-mention distinction). Page title are entirely about enabling people to find what they are looking for, and if most people are looking for information about a car company when look for "ford" then that is what we should present them with. Of the first 20 hits on google for ford -wikipedia 1 was about the Ford Foundation, 1 was about Gerald Ford, 1 about Tom Ford and one about Harrison Ford, all the rest were about the car company, so it's clear that the river crossing is not the primary usage. This is backed up by the stats.grok.se page view stats from April where the article about the motor company got 47,696 hits, the dab page 1613 and the article about the river crossing 4716. Even if we assume that everyone viewing the disambiguation page got there via the Ford page (unlikely given 9 article-space redirects and people like me who go directly) and didn't want the article about the motor company (unlikely to be everyone) then the motor company still got over 9.7 times the number of views the river crossing did. How can the latter be the primary topic? Also, you should note that Wikionary is case sensitive and so distinguishes wikt:ford and Wikt:Ford in a way that Wikipedia cannot. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're talking about primary usage, I'm talking about a primary meaning. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the difference? Primary usage the meaning of the word, phrase, acronym, etc that most people understand when they hear/see the word without qualification and/or without assistance of context, it is thus what they expect to find when they look up that word, etc on Wikipedia. All the evidence shows that when most people see/hear the word "Ford" with no qualification or context they hear the meaning "Ford Motor Company", so we put our article about that company at Ford.
I could be wrong, but it's feeling like your trying to advocate for a top-down authority driven project. This would be a major philosophical change for Wikipedia and it's just not going to happen - Larry Sanger set-up Citizendium when he realised that Wikipedia was not going to use that model. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Thryduulf: The difference is something you yourself brought up. There is obviously a difference in the case of "ford" where the meaning of the word is "a river crossing" (and it is used to describe such), but it is also used as a surname, and (by extension) for the name of a company founded by someone of that name. The same also applies to Apple, Sun, Corvette, Duke of Wellington, and all the other cases that have been worked over in these discussions; they have usage beyond their primary meaning.
My reason for emphasizing meaning over usage is because that is what encyclopaedias do; and I don't see what is so "top down" and "authority-driven" about following reliable sources on the subject, nor do I see it as a "major philosophical change".
And I could be wrong, but you seem to be telling me to go and play somewhere else. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a difference between primary usage and "primary meaning", primary usage is much more useful for navigational aids, such as redirects and disambiguation pages, and has the added benefit of being easier to determine than "primary meaning". Which is why it's been used for primary topic guidelines, which is why it's too bad that it's been ignored in primary topic discussions. Perhaps the proposal would be better to change the name of the section to "primary usage". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the word 'primary' that is confusing, it indicates that there is some importance attached. Clearly many editors here don't consider importance important and so if you wish to change the term 'primary meaning', might I suggest 'common meaning' or something similar. I would however question the value of an encyclopaedia that appears to be telling people which piece of merchandise they should be covetting; rather than educating them in the true meaning of the word.--Ykraps (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"Importance" isn't a mandatory component of "primary", but we could be clearer. "primary topic" → "most likely topic" would reflect it, but it would exclude the consideration of minimizing "surprise" in instances like Apple vs. Apple, Inc.. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The two dictionaries I own: The Oxford English Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary both give "first in importance" as their first definition and although they give other definitions such as, "first in time", "first in degree, rank etc"; neither of them mention commonality. I really think you need to let go of the word 'primary' if you wish to avoid confusion. Although I still maintain that the confusion is yours.--Ykraps (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. On reading that back, it appears quite rude. What I mean is that, I am of the opinion that when 'Primary topic' was first written, it meant to refer to the first in importance; and it is subsequent editors who have attached a rather different meaning to it.--Ykraps (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken. I checked Merriam-Webster for my reply.[14] I believe the subsequent editors were making good-faith improvements to the guideline and made it more useful to the encyclopedia than the first rough cut. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply to JHunter:As far as the need for a navigational aid is concerned, it is, to my mind, largely a manufactured problem. We have WP:TITLE and various naming conventions; if articles are consistent with them they are relatively easy to find. It certainly isn't necessary to be shunting them around according to whatever is flavour of the month on the internet.
And if I type in a term (apple, sun, ford, corvette, duke of Wellington) I get a list of options, not just one. If I type Apple because I want, say, the record company but didn’t know it was a fruit; or Sun because I want the newspaper, but didn’t know it was the name for the star at the centre of our solar system, then there is a hatnote on the article page to help me. Seems a perfectly adequate arrangement to me.
As for which is easier to determine, it strikes me that getting a definition from a reliable source is a lot easier than making a decision based on a range of volatile criteria, then having an almighty row with every one who come to a different conclusion. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The almighty row is certainly unnecessary, agreed. Many topics covered by Wikipedia are not covered by other encyclopedias (or by other dictionaries, which is a different problem), so while there are some cases where criteria could be constructed that use reliable sourcing, those criteria wouldn't work generically (unless we are talking about traffic stats, which are fairly reliable). The WP:TITLE and various naming conventions do not address the issue of navigation. The "perfectly adequate" arrangement you find will be just as adequate if the word "corvette" takes you to the Chevrolet page with a hatnote on it, too. So none of these arguments are particularly definitive. To my mind, the issue of primary topic (or most likely topic) is still one of maximizing reader efficiency and minimizing reader surprise. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wasn’t suggesting this as a cure-all, just as an addition, to be a consideration in deciding a primary topic.
Currently, we only use the vital article category (750 articles) to provide a definitive primary meaning, so every other article is up for grabs; this way articles matching the 65,000 odd terms in the Britannica would be more definite also, which would be a 100-fold improvement; going to the 600,000 terms in the OED would be 10 times better than that.
And the way TITLE and N/C aid navigation is to provide article titles that are consistent; because all car pages use a maker/model format, if I wanted Nissan Cherry or Skoda Octavia I know straightaway where to look ( I wouldn’t be going to Cherry and getting redirected to Virginity, for example ( shit! BEANS!) )
And you know already I think the bit about maximizing efficiency and minimizing surprise is begging the question.
But I’m pretty sure you aren’t going to be convinced, so we probably need to agree to disagree. I made the suggestion, you opposed; that’s it.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal essentially suggests making a fundamental change to how primary topic is defined in Wikipedia, and, thus, putting into question how countless articles are named. As I've noted before, the name "primary topic" is perhaps not the best, because to many it is understood to mean "most important", when, actually, it means "highly likely to be the one being sought". Very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic solely based on other people with the name?

Britney redirects to Britney Spears, and someone started a RM about eight months ago to move it back, but this was argued down. It was argued that Spears was clearly the most primary of the four other Britneys that we have articles on (and that we could always hatnote for Brittany). However, I was under the impression that the primary topic was based on what people would be thinking about in general, not just on articles that we have right now. So people thinking about "Britney" may also be thinking about "Brittany" as well, and be a disambiguation rather than a redirect to Spears. But I've carefully read this policy a few times over and it appears that we only consider articles we have currently and choose as a primary topic. Was this a recent change? I'm an old user (since 2005), or maybe I had the wrong impression in my head for all these years? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I would tend to agree with your assessment. I think the primary topic of "Britney" should be the given name, Britney. bd2412 T 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's a change since 2005 (about when I started), but I do know there is strong consensus support for the idea that we only consider the likelihood that articles that actually currently exist are the ones being sought when entering a given term in determining primary topic. I've never heard of this notion of considering what people would be thinking about "in general" when determining primary topic.

    I'm not crazy about Britney redirecting to Britney Spears, but must admit most people entering "Britney" are much more likely to be looking for the entertainer than any other topic, including the given name. I suppose some percentage that search for "Britney" are actually looking for Brittany, but I know of no evidence or reason to believe that that percentage is significant enough to make the entertainer not be the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    • If you look at the traffigc graphs for Britney (disambiguation) and Britney, about 200 people visit Britney, and about a quarter of those people click on the disambiguation page since they hit the wrong article. Obviously numbers are bad and I don't want to rely on them too much as a crutch, but I wonder if there are any prior discussions elsewhere that have considered a ratio like this.
    • My thought about "in general" may have been gleaned from some of the discussions, in which people often argue, "Well, when I think of X, I don't think of Y, but this thing instead." Like this one discussion on Talk:Emerson in which a user said that he didn't think of the philosopher, but the entertainment player in his living room. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      Thanks for the clarification. I've seen those comments too, and ignored them. The appropriate response is: what any one person (you included) may or may not think of upon reading or seeing "X" is irrelevant to the process of determining whether "X" has a primary topic, and, if so, what it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We disambiguate (and "primary-topic-ate") based on articles we have right now. Future Wikipedia can take care of future Wikipedia disambiguation. I do not think this is a recent change. Whether or not the primary topic right now of "Britney" is the current singer topic or current name topic is a different issue -- it sounds like an RM has been completed on it, and there's little to be gained in having it here. Unfortunately, the disambiguation guidelines have no teeth or other real support out in the RM realm except as editors there have both awareness of the guidelines and the stomach to explain them again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If a quarter of the people typing in "Britney" are getting to the wrong article, that means three times as many are getting to the right article, which implies to me that we've got the primary topic right. (The only likely rival I can see is Britney (album), and I suppose people might be going to the album from a link in the article rather than using the dab page; but if that's the case we could always mention the album specifically in the hatnote to make things even easier.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC wording change proposal

Remove relatively new "educational value" exception

I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish by some of the proposed wording changes above in general, but to the specific issue of the vague and relatively new "educational value" consideration, I favor removing it altogether, precisely because it's vague. That is, it reduces the guidance given by the policy, and creates opportunities for rationalizations and WP:JDLI types of arguments. The policy should discourage, not encourage, the "more important! more likely! more important! more likely!" pointless types of debates. Although the vital article exception violates the spirit of primary topic (which is supposed to be about making those articles most likely to be sought to be the ones the reader is taken to, period) it is okay because it is clear when that exception applies, and it's scope is very limited. In fact, I also favor making it more clear about that. In contrast, the "educational value" consideration is about as vague and useless as it could be. Therefore I offer the following proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording change proposal

The sentence in question currently states:

An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article.

I propose changing it to:

An exception is when one of these topics is a vital article — all vital articles should be considered to be the primary topics for the most common name by which they are referred. For articles that are not vital, recentism and educational value should not be taken into account when deciding which, if any, topic is primary. Only relative likelihood of being sought should be considered.

Discussion

  • Support. Should help reduce debate and conflict when someone's perception of the high "educational value" of some topic conflicts with the relatively low likelihood of that topic being the one being sought. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Absolutely not! Educational value is of paramount importance when deciding what the primary topic should be. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate!--Ykraps (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    No educational value will be lost (or gained) by one arrangement of topics for an ambiguous title vs. another. All educational content will be in the same articles it was before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    When articles are buried at the bottom of disambiguation pages, there is a danger that the article (and therefore the educational content within) is lost.--Ykraps (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    No danger; the article will still be there, and wikilinks to it will work, and readers who are searching for topics obscure enough to be "buried" on a disambiguation page can be expected find it at the bottom of the disambiguation page. Casual readers not searching for it specifically may not notice it, but that's fine. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    If they don't know about it, they wouldn't look for it and therefore wouldn't learn about it. Wikipedia is not like a book you can browse or read page by page.--Ykraps (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    Right. If they don't know about it, it's not the topic they're looking for. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    .....And hence the initial comment about educational value! --Ykraps (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    The definition of the primary topic for a given ambiguous term is: the topic (if any) which is "highly likely to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box.".

    What does "educational value" have to do with such a determination? It appears that Ykraps is presuming a definition of "primary topic" which is entirely different from what is meant by "primary topic" in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

    The definition of primary I am using is the one that can be found in most dictionaries, 'first in importance'. It is also the definition used in these guidelines when they were first written here [[15]]. The idea of using page and Google hits to determine Primary topic was added much later here [[16]] on the 28/07/2008.--Ykraps (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    Improvements to Wikipedia, like improvements to many things, happen much later than the first draft. The implication that the first draft was righter than the later draft strictly on the basis of age should not be made. Strike "the" from the definition, too. "Most dictionaries" give the multiple definitions that "primary" has, making it ambiguous, as Born2cycle said. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    The definition I used is in most dictionaries. Please note also that B2C used the definitive article in his sentence too; a definition, I hasten to add, that is not in any dictionary. You may see the changes to these guildelines as an improvement but I do not! Using Google is fraught with danger as companies pay Google to have their websites moved up the pecking order and using page hits can also return innacurate results if commas or spaces are used.--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't quite support this as it stands - I don't see any great significance in or need for the concept of "vital article" (this may have been a useful category in the early days of WP, when important articles were still underdeveloped, but not any more). I would say recentism is something that should be taken into account, if only for the sake of long-term stability of article titles; and I might have some sympathy for the "educational value" criterion if someone could give a proper definition. --Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think long-term stability of article titles is necessary. Short-term stability is nice, mid-term is okay, but long-term, times changes and the benefit of the non-physical encyclopedia is that it can easily change to keep up with them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • K, I don't understand your objection to this proposal. The exception for vital articles is in the current wording - this proposal is not adding that. Though I can't think of any actual examples, I suppose the idea is that if some musical group (say) named after a planet became overwhelmingly popular relative to its namesake planet, that the planet would never-the-less remain at the base name. If this was ever needed, why would it no longer be needed? But I would not be opposed to removing all mention of vital articles here, as I agree it's not needed. But I don't see consensus support for that, though it has not been specifically discussed.

      I agree there is no "proper definition" for "educational value" criterion, and that's one reason I'm proposing that exception be removed. But even if there were, it would arguably apply to any article with a name that has a namesake - the "educational value" would be in having the article about the namesake be at the base name. This would apply to any film named after a book (e.g., Talk:Children_of_a_Lesser_God), no matter how obscure the book; any famous person named after a parent or grandparent (e.g., the famous Benedict Arnold and his lesser known grandfather, Benedict Arnold (governor)), no matter how obscure the namesake (so long as they are sufficiently notable to have an entry in WP), etc., etc. In every such case where the argument that an article should be at the base name for "educational value" could be made, the normal primary topic argument could be made for a more popular use. That's not providing guidance, that's guaranteeing discord, and I honestly see no way to handle it well, even if there was a proper definition for "educational value". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

      • My main objection is that it says "recentism...should not be taken into account". I think up to a point it should be (as in the hypothetical planet vs. pop group situation you mention) - and that should apply regardless of whether the more "long-term" holder of the name happens to have been listed by someone as a "vital article" at some point.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the proposed change. If anything, the guideline should have a stronger position that defaults toward a disambiguation page in cases where there are multiple candidates for primary topic based on differing criteria. An extra click is a trivial inconvenience and hardly worth the volumes of discussion expended debating which topic is primary. older ≠ wiser 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This passed only recently with strong support. There have been no problems created by the change of policy. There's no reason to move backwards. --JaGatalk 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • JaGa (or anyone who wishes to answer), how is the current "no problems" (ahem, see: Talk:Corvette#Requested_move wording significantly different, in practical terms, from having no guidance about primary topic? Seriously. The current wording allows for rationalizing just about any reasonable conceivable position regarding the question of primary topic for any title. Consider:
      • "But TopicX has N times as many ghits as TopicY, N times as many page views, and N times as many wikilinks!" → "There are no absolute rules; ghits are not a determining factor; TopicX was named after TopicY, which has existed for centuries; there is "educational value" to consider, and recentism."
      • "Fine, then there is no primary topic." → "There are no absolute rules; ghits are not a determining factor; TopicX was named after TopicY, which has existed for centuries; there is "educational value" to consider, and recentism."
    I honestly don't see how the current wording provides any guidance whatsoever. I have to say that per the original wording, there is clearly no primary topic for Corvette. But per this current wording, the more I think about it, the more I realize this part of WP:D no longer provides any guidance for the question at Talk:Corvette#Requested_move, nor for any other situation involving primary topic. We might as well delete it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think what you don’t see is that your failure to persuade (read “browbeat”) those who disagreed with you at that discussion had little to do with the "educational meaning" clause. There were numerous arguments against your position from outside WP:PT and number of arguments quite apart from “educational meaning” against your interpretation of WP:PT itself. But perhaps you didn’t see them. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The OP states the guidelines should discourage the "more important! more likely!" type of debate (and seeks to do this by removing the "more important" side of the equation). But the very meaning of the term "primary topic" implies "more important" (of the first, chief, principal) yet the guideline pays little enough heed to that as it is.
And, his definition of the spirit of primary topic; that it is "supposed to be about making those articles most likely to be sought to be the ones the reader is taken to, period", is also highly debatable.
I also feel B2C’s proposal is hardly disinterested; having stated in that discussion that the "education value" argument was the only one his opponents produced that had merit, he is now seeking to delete it. Make of it what you will… Xyl 54 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For a long time, HunterJ has endlessly intoned his continuously informed with the mantra:
Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration
Now don't think, just say it after me..
Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not...
This is the central issue here. But is he correct? I think absolutely not. But many participants here apparently think he is right. Essentially, this is the position that a simple google and page view popularity count determines where an article should be directed. Clearly this position is hugely attractive because of its startling simplicity and ease of implementation. But beyond this, is it really such a wise guideline, or is it destabilising the English language. The imbroglio at Talk:Corvette suggest the latter. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You misspelled "the mantra" as "his mantra" there, and are edging into rudeness with "endlessly intoned", and are definitely moving toward talking about the editors instead of about the editors. It is not that "many participants here apparently think his is right". It's that I am active in this project, pay attention to the consensus, and then constantly ("endlessly") try to use that consensus to inform ("intone") other discussions, such as the imbroglio at Talk:Corvette. That editors there choose to ignore the consensus is the problem.
Ambiguity exists. A resolution mechanism for the ambiguity is needed. Why? So that readers can navigate to the article on the topic they seek. A particular kind of page was created to provide that navigational aid. Wikipedia effectively coined the term disambiguation to describe that navigational aid. This is why disambiguation pages are pages, not articles. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have struck the phrase that offends you. Thank you for modelling how editors should respond. But I'm not clear what you mean when you say I am "definitely moving toward talking about the editors instead of about the editors". I have raised many issues about the disambiguation guidelines on Talk:Corvette. You have not yet acknowledged any of these issues. Instead, you continuously inform me by typing "Disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration." But it is precisely this wisdom and how to interpret it that is being questioned. For example, it seems to me that you interpret the mantra to mean "Disambiguation pages are navigational aids only, and have no other function". Is that correct? Are we allowed to ask questions like this? If your interpretation of the disambiguation guidelines prevails, then "Corvette" will go directly to a type of car made by Chevrolet. Now I'm sure the marketing arm of Chevrolet would be delighted with this, and would be prepared to pay Wikipedia millions every year if it were negotiable. But they will get it for free. "Chevrolet Corvette" will become even more famous, Wikipedia will become a defacto marketing arm of a US corporation, and the next generation of children will believe that a corvette is to do with cars and being a Chevrolet, and so on. These and many other concerns have been raised on the Corvette talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
All of the issues were addressed (and sometimes the addressing was ignored or dismissed as too-much mantra). The mantra is based on the history of disambiguation pages, not on any "interpretation" of anything. Which part of this do you not believe: "Ambiguity exists. A resolution mechanism for the ambiguity is needed. Why? So that readers can navigate to the article on the topic they seek. A particular kind of page was created to provide that navigational aid. Wikipedia effectively coined the term disambiguation to describe that navigational aid. This is why disambiguation pages are pages, not articles." The desire of some editors to expand disambiguation pages beyond navigation is what lead to the separate "set index articles". They aren't something I would pursue, but they don't interfere with navigation, so I work on dab pages and others work on set indexes. Questions about the disambiguations are allowed, and have been asked for years. And a correction: I was arguing for moving the disambiguation page for Corvette to the base name. To avoid any possible free benefit to US corporations, shall we delete all articles about any products currently on the market? If that's truly a concern (and I don't think it is), that should be the position. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that questions about disambiguations are allowed. But it seems answers to the questions will not be forthcoming. Instead of directly addressing the other points raised above, you just question me back, asking off topic questions that have nothing to do with the issue at point. It may be that I just don't know how to express these issues with any clarity. I've restated them several times, in different ways, and I do not know how to make it clearer. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. The questions to you are directly on-topic -- they illustrate why disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not tools for exploration. But you have to be willing to see that possibility. This is a discussion, not an interrogation, so I might not answer your questions in the anticipated way, but I certainly think that all of your issues have been addressed. Which issue(s) remain "open"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Who says disambiguation pages are not tools for exploration? I quite often use them for this purpose and I suspect many others do too. Are you saying that original usage is important because that argument is always put forward during page move discussions and someone always says it isn't relevant?!--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said above: "Ambiguity exists. A resolution mechanism for the ambiguity is needed. Why? So that readers can navigate to the article on the topic they seek. A particular kind of page was created to provide that navigational aid. Wikipedia effectively coined the term disambiguation to describe that navigational aid. This is why disambiguation pages are pages, not articles." If you use them for exploration, you can. I used the handle of a bread knife as a nutcracker last night, but that doesn't mean the manufacturer should rework the handle to make it crack nuts more easily. Original usage is not particularly useful in primary topic determination, IMO. Current usage (on Wikipedia and in reliable sources such as news articles, books, and scholarly journals) along with the principle of least readership surprise are adequate to the task. Where the "original" meaning or any other criterion are relevant is when they affect either usage or surprise, so they are not needed separately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I was really making the point that even though they were created as navigational aids, that isn't necessarily the primary usage for them now. There is already a perfectly adequate tool for cracking nuts, there isn't a tool for exploring Wikipedia so why shouldn't this be a consideration?--Ykraps (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Evidence please. There are already multiple tools for browsing and exploring. Disambiguation pages have always been primarily for navigation (and of course navigation and exploration are not mutually exclusive -- only disambiguation pages are primarily intended to facilitate navigation rather than the satisfaction of random curiosity). While consensus can change, it will take more than an off-the-cuff observation made in the heat of a pitched battle to convince me. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Perhaps you could point me towards these tools for browsing and exploring as I am unaware of them.--Ykraps (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Offhand, there's Portal:Contents and Special:Random for hierarchical browsing and random exploration respectively. For word-based browsing, Special:Search (or the search box on each page) provides fairly good results for articles containing specific text strings. older ≠ wiser 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, many pages include navigation boxes. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, although this does not change my opinion on how primary topic is decided.--Ykraps (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but suggest that only the first sentence of the proposed new text should be kept. The guideline should say what exception to the rule is allowed. There is no need to explicitly list cases that are not exceptions to the general rule. And yes, I agree that disambiguation pages are navigation aids, not indices or tools for exploration. "Educational value" is not really a relevant concern. The right way for readers to find a page that is of educational value is via a direct link from a related topic, not through a dab page.--Srleffler (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I like the simplicity. Also, it's nice to be really clear about what our goal is. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support because I don't know of a single example that requires this rule, even among the vital articles. Having rules to solve no practical problem is instruction creep to me. This is just used as a formal justification for WP:ILIKEIT, as of course everybody's preferred topic is more "educational", so books are always primary over films, etc. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 'Educational value' is inherently ambiguous (also, imo, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to 'inform' rather than to 'educate'). --rgpk (comment) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is excessive WP:CREEP and unnecessarily attempts to proscribe what editors may or may not consider in discussions (apparently for the simple reason that some discussions have produced results that some editors object to). older ≠ wiser 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and support the recentism and educational value clause. I guess it was included as a generalisation of the vital article principle – one that we are already following in practice. Something doesn't become a primary topic simply by popularity. One example is the disambiguation page Ebert. The film critic Roger Ebert gets more than ten times the page views of Friedrich Ebert, the last Reichskanzler (chancellor) of the German Empire, during a period of revolution, and then the first president of the first German republic. For anyone doing historic research it would be shocking to enter "Ebert" in the search form and find a film critic. This is especially true for people from outside the US, most of whom have never heard of the film critic. Hans Adler 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the attempt by this proposal to shut down consensus discussions is more noxious than any ambiguity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not fond of 'educational value' as a term either, but 'vital article' is far too narrow a category. We really don't want to shift debates onto whether something should be termed a vital article if, for example, the real issue is that a word has been selected for a film/band/product etc (nowadays probably after looking it up on Wikipedia and deciding that it had the right associations). There is a division between those who would like this to be decided solely on a simple statistical analysis (though how many of them genuinely think that the primary topic for Madonna should be the singer) and those who believe that the decision should be much more subtle. I'd leave things as they are until a better wording is found. --AJHingston (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment For another example of the problems caused by the current wording, please see: Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire#Requested_move. Since so many seem to believe the "education exception" is important, I have another idea for improving the wording so that it will actually provide guidance in these situations. I'll propose it below. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- In fact, not only should it not be changed to the suggested revision, but we need to rewrite the entire PRIMARYTOPIC section to emphasize that educational value and increased understanding are the central goal, with traffic only being used as one of the metrics to determine importance. Right now, the policy is totally backwards. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • But primary topic was never about traffic or importance. It was about naming articles so that users could get to the article they seek as efficiently as possible. That's why traffic is an important factor. But the idea of "importance" or "educational value" or "increased understanding" are so subjective... and what's the point?

      If someone wants to learn something about the Corvette car, and so searches for "corvette", what is the "importance", "educational value" or "increased understanding" achieved by taking him to an article about a ship type? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples

I wonder if people might use this space to give some examples of where the "educational value" clause might be used? Thus far I have only heard of one possible case:

  • Corvette – Corvette (ship) instead of Chevrolet Corvette –CWenger (^ • @) 22:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Madonna is a dab page despite Madonna (singer) clearly being the primary topic since it regularly gets 5-10x+ as many page views as any other use on the dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a perfect example. I have to admit I like the current situation, which would probably only be justified with the "educational value" clause. Would anybody argue the singer should be at Madonna? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I would. Almost certainly (you can never know for sure) over 75% of those typing in "Madonna" and hitting Go are seeking the entertainer, and yet are all taken to the dab page. The whole point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is precisely to prevent that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You make a strong case. Is the point of this guideline that somebody looking for information about the pop singer would instead learn about the artwork? It doesn't seem like Wikipedia's place to be advancing one topic over another that we/society currently deems more worthy, but I can see both sides. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
          That is obviously the motivation for many. At "Madonna" I suspect it's more about discomfort in perceiving that it would be giving the entertainer priority or importance over a respected religious figure, but at "Corvette" I think it's mostly about ship enthusiasts wanting more people to learn about the ship class origins of the term. Call it "education through fostering serendipitous learning" if you will. I can see both sides too, but I see no way to provide useful guidance without entirely ignoring the "educational" aspect.

          I mean, for a given term with multiple uses for which one is much more likely to be sought and another is arguably more educational (all others are moot to this discussion for they have no primary/educational conflict by definition), unless we prioritize one over the other, we're fostering a situation which is purely governed by WP:JDLI. But even if we prioritize the educational option in those cases, the lack of clear definition for what constitutes "educational" makes that JDLI anyway. I mean, even in this case of "Madonna", is redirecting Madonna searchers to the dab, from which almost all will just click on the entertainer's link near the top of the page, rather than sending them directly to the entertainer's page really more educational? That's arguable at best. Hence, I see no way to provide useful guidance without entirely ignoring the "educational" aspect. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

          • Since when is optimizing the number of clicks the objective of primary topic? I think if there is one thing that is clear is that there is no single meaning of primary topic. No matter how much some might say that primary topic has nothing to do with importance, there is simply no denying that many people do place significance on an undisambiguated title. For a long time now, I've felt that the number of clicks arguments is given far too much weight and that the bar for primary topic should be much higher, and where there is ambiguity the default should be to have a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If we don't know what the reader is looking for, there is ambiguity and so we should disambiguate. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I notice the section has been edited, while the discussion is still ongoing, and to make changes that don't seem to have been proposed in the discussion anywhere.
So I've put it back to the staus quo ante until the discussion is concluded. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The changes you reverted did not affect content or meaning and had nothing to do with the educational value exception being discussed above. Normally no discussion is required for such an innocuous change, but a revert is fine per WP:BRD presuming you have an actual objection to the addition of subheadings to this section. Do you? If so, what is it? If not, if anyone agrees with me that adding the subheadings adds clarity, please restore. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a guideline, so no changes are "innocuous".
And I cannot see it adds clarity; the section is only three paragraphs long, so it’s easy enough to read. What your sub-headings do is shout what it says, which is my objection. The emphasis being placed on PT is one of the issues here; it’s gone from halfway down the page to second from the top, which IMO is trying to give it more weight. By (essentially) saying everything twice, and having nearly half the text in bold, you are now seeking to gold-plate it.
But I’m happy to see if there are any other opinions on the subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparent disambiguator is part of the name

A technical question

Some of the recent RM discussions highlighted for me the role of the search option, (which focuses on the first word first) and that in some cases the most popular search term doesn’t (or didn’t) lead to the desired article (eg corvette, the car; Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington; John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough). I noticed that a search for DoW threw up a listing for Duke of Wellington Arthur Wellesley which redirected to the actually-titled AW DoW, and that seemed to me to be a very sensible arrangement. However when I tried to reproduce it for Corvette Chevrolet and Duke of Marlborough John Churchill they didn’t appear as search options. Any ideas why not? And does the idea (redirects in this format, for popular and/or confusing search terms) have any merit? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't ask me for too much technical detail on how it works, but I do know that the search results come from a database that lags behind the live Wikipedia. I think your redirects will show up when the servers update, or something like that.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(Thanks for replying) It could be, but it's been a few weeks since I did them. Is it anything to do with page views? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC wording change proposal #2

Strengthen relatively new "educational value" exception.

Since my proposal to remove the relatively new "education value" exception does not have consensus support, I will now propose this alternative to fixing the problem. To review, the problem is that since the educational value exception clause was added to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it effectively no longer provides any guidance in any situation where one of the uses for a given term arguably has "educational value". And since "educational value" is not defined and left open to interpretation, and because almost all terms have at least one use which arguably has education value, we're no longer providing guidance in most cases!

What if instead of saying educational value "may be appropriate" to consider, we explicitly say that in cases where there is no clear primary topic, but one of the uses is the original use of the term, that it should be treated as if it is the primary topic? Accordingly, I offer the following proposal. To illustrate with recent examples, adoption of this change would make it clear that Corvette is where it should be and Marlborough should not have been moved to Marlborough,_Wiltshire. (See: Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire#Requested_move and Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire#Move_decision_NOT_a_Consensus). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wording change proposal

The sentence in question currently states:

An exception occurs when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

I propose changing it to:

An exception is when none of the uses of a given term meet the primary topic criteria, but one of the uses is the original use of the term (is the eponym for the other uses). In such a case, the original use is treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

Discussion

  • Oppose: Benedict Arnold (governor) is the original use of the term, but nobody would contend he is the primary topic over Benedict Arnold. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you read the proposed wording? The exception only applies "when none of the uses of a given term meet the primary topic criteria", which is clearly not the case with Benedict Arnold. Do you have any objections that apply to what was proposed? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Apparently I read it a little too fast. But if this only applies when there is not a primary topic, does that mean this will always make a primary topic? In other words, if there are a bunch of guys named Joe Smith, none of them significantly more popular, this would argue to just take the earliest Joe Smith and make him the primary topic? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the intent is to only apply when there is no primary topic and one of the uses is the "original" name, meaning it is the eponym for the other uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly how I interpreted it. I think we may be getting somewhere. --AJHingston (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, because there are other George Bush's which are not named after that George Bush, nor any other. This is unlikely to apply to ever apply to articles about people, because for people either the name will be too common, or if it's unique there will usually be a primary topic use. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To the contrary, this would not add any rules, it would clarify what the current rules say, which are currently ambiguous.

    Do you understand and appreciate the underlying problem I'm trying to address? As it stands, for any term that conceivably has a use with "educational value" which is not the primary topic, the wording gives conflicting guidance. If another use is primary, it gives no indication as to which is preferred, the primary topic or the "educational value" topic. If there is no primary topic, it gives no indication as to which is preferred - to put the "educational value" topic or the dab page at the base name. What a mess! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I do, and I supported your first proposal, as I think the "educational value" clause is totally subjective. But this would just be too confusing to be of much help. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to reiterate my concern that it may be difficult to determine eponyms. Using everybody's favorite example, how do we know that the Chevrolet Corvette was named after corvette (ship)? I don't think we want to have to investigate the origin of names in order to determine a primary topic. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If this wasn't a rhetorical question, the answer is on the car page (introduction, with ref). And as to the second point, wouldn't the burden of proof rest with the person making the claim? "We" wouldn't have to investigate anything. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I’d add a cautious support to this. I think the eponym/original meaning of a word is an important consideration. But I notice your proposal loses all mention of recentism and vital article as well as the educational value; was that intentional? Or necessary? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Potentially; I can't get excited about it but I think a lot of people like like original namesakes for some reason, so it might make sense to take them into consideration if we can come up with a good way. The wording here would need to take into account scenarios where the namesake is obscure while the contenders for primacy are much more significant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although an improvement, it still places too much emphasis on page hits; something I would like PT to move away from. To take an earlier example; 'Madonna' should, to my mind, go to the virgin Mary (I know it doesn't) because of the enormous significance to so many people (and I'm not one of them BTW). The fact that twice as many are looking for the singer is of no importance to me, particularly if they can find what they are looking for by clicking on a hatnote.--Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    is of no importance to me... that's quite obvious. But this is Wikipedia, not Facebook. Seriously, I don't understand your reasoning at all. The page hits show what, if anything, is important not to you or me, but to most readers, you know, the ones we are supposed to be trying to serve. What you're suggesting is to ignore what's important to them and go by what's important to you.

    Anyway, how do you even define importance? Regardless, why take everyone to the "important" use (whatever you deem that to be) if we know, from page hits, they are very likely looking for a different topic? Trying to get people directly to the topic they are very likely to be seeking is, and has always been, the essence of the primary topic concept, it has nothing to do with "importance", regardless of who defines "importance" or how. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

    I became embroiled in this discussion when I was searching for Corvette Stingray and ended up on the corvette page; but contrary to what you believe, I wasn't upset about it and clicking on the hatnote took me to where I wanted to go (after reading the article I'd landed on and associated talk page). It is more important to me that I am taken first to the 'primary meaning' so arriving at an article about a ship type was, to me, right and proper. Judging by some of the comments I've read, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks ease of navigation is a secondary factor in deciding WP:Primary Topic. I appreciate your gigantic effort to save me an extra click of my mouse but I think I can manage, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    I have a high enough opinion of the readers seeking the ship type to believe that they could just as easily manage the extra click. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC surfaces at Magneto

Talk:Magneto#Requested_move

Earlier at Talk:Magneto_(comics)#Requested_move, although that wasn't properly flagged at the other pages affected, so the discussion there was rather limited.

The requested move is to move Magneto (comics) → Magneto and the existing Magneto to a new name as Magneto (electrical). Magneto (disambiguation) would stay where it is. It's claimed that Magneto (comics) is the primary topic because of its page view statistics. These are acknowledged to be several times those for Magneto. Note though that Magneto's are themselves comparable to Dynamo and Alternator, so don't show evidence of being inflated by mis-directed comics fans being delayed for valuable moments from their busy lives.

Consensus is split quite clearly between readers from each article favouring "their own" as the primary topic. Those from the electrical Magneto on the grounds that this has clear historical precedent and was the inspiration for the comic character, even more so than any educational value.

Any advice? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the earlier move request was to make Magneto (comics) the primary topic over the current Magneto (electrical generator), which was uniformly rejected. The new proposal is to put Magneto (disambiguation) at Magneto, as there is no primary topic, given the traffic statistics. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

PT:Populism; an observation

Just to add an observation.

I've questioned a couple of times the emphasis in PT on the current and populist meaning of words over the well-established.

One reason for this might be found in WP:NEO which says "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term".

As with new words, so with new meanings for old words. In a situation where an WP article often figures in the top ten search results for a term, the attraction for a commercial interest to fix the playing field is obvious; and a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and allows (encourages, even) anonymous contributions, is particularly vulnerable to manipulation It's happened before and is likely to happen again. In fact it is probably happening as we speak.

I’m sure (for example) the Publicity department at Ford Motors is delighted that the article on their company is the first port of call for the term (if they didn’t actually engineer it!) and, as we don’t accept advertising, the fact that it is free is simply a bonus. Just a thought. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Recentism is a separate issue, which is supposed to avoid temporary surges in popularity. But temporary in this context is measured in days, weeks and maybe months, not years. Certainly not decades, as in the case of Ford and Corvette, etc. For example, in recent weeks I'm sure the Congressman was the "primary topic" for "wiener", but we're not going to move the article about him to Wiener because of that. Now, if he became president, that might be considered. But the determining factor would be his staying power. That is, in terms of popularity, if he could keep it up for months, and users continued to be satisfied upon landing on him because that's what they were looking for when searching for "wiener", we would put him there, and keep him there, and there would be nothing dickish about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand about recentism, and how the current arrangement works. My point was that I believe the current arrangement is wide open to abuse by commercial (and. I suppose, political) interests, and I was enquiring whether or not anyone else had the same concerns. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be abused. Either the commercial or political topic is much more likely than any other topic to be sought by readers entering a particular search term, or not. Where is the abuse? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If "much more likely to be sought by readers" is determined by hit counts, the potential for abuse is obvious. Say you are a PR agency seeking to promote a new band named "Burlington". How hard would it be to set up a couple of PCs with bots to run 24/7 calling up the band's Wikipedia page? Then after a week or two, insist on moving the band article to be the primary topic of the ambiguous term, based on the 'evidence' of the massive number of hits for this article as opposed to any other topic listed on the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. I think the emphasis placed by some on hit counts is misplaced. It is but one indicator that there might be a primary topic (or conversely that there is not a single primary topic). Such page view evidence needs to be balanced with other considerations such as general search engine results and usage in reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course. If hit counts indicate one topic is primary, but WP:GOOGLE and/or reliable sources indicate another topic is primary, it's likely there is none and the dab page should be at the base name. But what's often the case is that hit counts clearly show users favoring one topic over all other uses by a significant margin, and the other considerations do not contradict that, and yet people often discount the significance of hit counts in such scenarios. Worse, they often discount and even ignore hit counts when the counts indicate their favored topic is not primary... see Talk:Corvette for a recent example of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Entries on the db page for Raja Karan

Hi

The page Raja Karan has a multitude of entries that seem non-notable, or at least not needing a DB entry. I wondered if there was anything that says this is acceptable or incorrect. I read the article page here, as well as on MoS but could not see anything that prevented or accepted this amount of drive-by-links.

Can someone please advise me where to go to find the definite guideline? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

One or more of MOS:LIST, WP:SETINDEX, WP:STANDALONE, WP:LISTPEOPLE would apply. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Disambiguation/PrimaryTopicDefinition to your watchlist

I have moved the primary topic definition:

into a transcludable subpage of this page so that it can be transcluded into other pages, such as the essay, WP:How2title. As such, editors who watch this page may want to add Wikipedia:Disambiguation/PrimaryTopicDefinition to their watchlist.

As a transcluded subpage of this guideline it remains part of the guideline, and, so, subject to the same discuss before changing rules that applied to it before. The talk page for the subpage is a redirect to this one, so any discussion about it will remain on this page and will show up on the watchlist of anyone watching it. So the main reason to have at least a few of us watching the new subpage directly is to enforce the discuss changes first rule.

I have given the principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE the same treatment. That caused some confusion there and has been discussed at length. See WT:TITLE#Principal naming criteria in subpage. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I have read the discussion at WT:TITLE and I am not convinced that it is a good idea to split this key definition away from the general page. If it is transcluded into another page - and that is the purpose of the exercise, as far as I can see - then someone who finds it on that page will expect to discuss it on the talk page of that page. The definition belongs within WP:Disambiguation and should stay there. There is also the very valid point made elsewhere that you can advise people today to add the subpage to their watchlist (creating work for all the watchers of the page), but anyone coming along in future, after this discussion has been archived, will not be aware that they need to watchlist this couple of lines separately. Please revert your bold splitting of this page. Well, perhaps I should revert it, under WP:BRD? No, I'll leave it till other views come along, in case I'm a minority of one in feeling that this split is not a good idea. PamD (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Because it's not a widely used mechanism, it might cause a little confusion, but not more than the transclusion of templates, which doesn't seem to cause much problem, and nothing that a quick discussion shouldn't be able to resolve. Whatever. I'm surprised by the objections, but have reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
      I think it's fine. Simply redirect the talk page here to address PamD's concern, which is a good point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No, redirecting the talk page for the transcluded fragment wouldn't solve the problem: if the words appear seamlessly in page "Xyzzz", then anyone wanting to discuss them in that context will start a discussion at "Talk:Xyzzz" which will not be seen by people at "Talk:Disambiguation". PamD (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The talk page for the transcluded fragment already redirects to this talk page. As to your concern, surely someone watching Xyzzz will know about the transclusion and will redirect any discussion about it accordingly. The worst case is John Doe makes a change proposal, and no one responds, so then he edits the page to make his change, and finds the transclusion statement instead of the text he wants to edit. That would of course lead him to the page with the transcluded fragment, and he would presumably then post his change proposal on that page, which is really this one due to the redirect. Or, he would make the change without discussion, which would be reverted for that reason by someone watching that transcluded fragment page. In the process, much would be learned by everyone involved. Frankly, I'm surprised this mechanism isn't used more, but I'm a programmer and so very familiar with the concept. In software it's indispensable. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New "Primary Topic" template

Using selective transclusion, I've created a new {{Primary Topic}} template that can be used to transclude just the core definition of primary topic from this page. The page itself was only affected slightly in terms of formatting to better isolate the isolate so that it could be effective selected from transclusion.

Any way, any time you want to quote the definition of primary topic, just type this: {{Primary Topic}}, which will be transcluded as this:

  1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the section on Set Index Articlers say that such articles may include redlinks, there is nothing (as far as I can see) that says that DAB pages should not. I habitually remove them if I see them, as obviously unnecessary for the purpose of disambiguation, unless on balance I feel there is some overriding interest to keep them. But should it be made explicit here that DAB pages should not, generally, include redlinks? i.e.

  • If you care enough about a topic to write it, then write it rather than just add it to the DAB, as seems sometimes to happen.
  • More frequently, I suppose, it is a topic that has been deleted for whatever reason and has not been removed from the DAB.

Not that I expect that wording, of course.

I realise WP:DAB is a guideline not a how-to but I just wonder if the policy on redlinks could thus be made clearer. I don't want to start creating a redlink-deletion frenzy here, but it just seems to me sensible that as I come across a DAB with a redlink, since it by definition does not disambiguate then it need not be in there.

And of course, by what I call the One Blue Link rule, i.e. that each item in a DAB should have only one link, there should be no redlink in the DAB description either, although often then the case is simply to unlink the redlink.

I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links covers this. I suspect that this section actually belongs in WP:Disambiguation instead, because it is about content rather than style. WP:Disambiguation dos and don'ts also mentions it. (And I also routinely delete redlinks from DAB pages if they don't meet the criterion of being linked to by something else.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This problem with rules about content being included in the style guideline pages is not unique. I fixed a similar problem in April 2011, as mentioned here. Other such "problems" still exist (in my opinion), eg Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the style guidelines have it about right. The trouble with saying 'no red links' is that these entries can serve a useful purpose. To take three cases where I have added them myself.
  • A notable composer where there is no article but there is an an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography in WikiSources. A Wikipedia article including the results of historical research and modern assessment of his music remains to be written, but until somebody sets to and creates one the DNB entry is better than a stub.
  • A notable street in a famous city, where the city article contains a photograph but not a description. The reason that nobody has created an article on the street will be because of the size of the task - every building in the street is listed as of historic or architectural importance, and the history of the street goes back almost 2,000 years. The street name is famous enough to be a plausible search term.
  • A film which won an award at Cannes but did not yet have its own article. Confusingly, the name of the film translates to the same title in English as another less notable US film released in the same year which does have an article. So a very useful disambiguation.
Obviously, none of these was a redlink pure and simple, in that there was a link in the description.
Of course, much does depend on your attitude to stubs. Some people regard them as better than nothing; my own view is that it is often better not to begin an article unless you are confident that you can be moderately pleased with the result. It's a different matter when improving other people's. --AJHingston (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
AJHingston, you didn't mention, for any of your examples, whether "an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link", which is the only explicitly stated criterion for inclusion of a red link on a DAB page. Your descriptions state that each example was notable, but it's not clear whether they are notable enough for other articles to link to them. The obvious "solution" for your examples would be to add a (red) link to the missing article from another article - eg from the list of notable streets in the famous city, or from the list of award winners. Or do you think that we should change the wording of MOS:DABRL, and if so, how? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Each of the examples was indeed mentioned in other articles and so the redlinks were in both directions. I'm not certain, though, that now attention has rightly been drawn to the point the implicit logic in the policy is right, which is worrying but I can't immediately suggest an improvement. The thinking seems to go like this. Dab articles are simply internal navigation pages, therefore they should not really contain anything other than links to other articles. However, since this is too strict a rule, allowance should be made for likely future articles, and the criteria for that is that this new topic is already referred to elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, if we take the subject of the putative biographical article in my example, his reference in an existing article is to his having taught another composer. That does not guarantee notability, which is not inherited. The subject's notability is rather that in his day he held the most senior national musical appointment (which explains why he had as pupil someone destined to be more notable still). So whilst it is perfectly true that the absence of a red link elsewhere can easily be got around by inserting a mention of the topic fairly randomly in a related article, or by creating a brief stub on the topic, I'm inclined to ay it misses the point of whether the entry should be in the dab page or not. --AJHingston (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
But this isn't too strict a rule. Future Wikipedia can care for future Wikipedia. Trying to guess now every possible future article is pointless. The current rule addresses this well enough: if an article uses the red link, the disambiguation page can. If an article mentions the topic (with a red link or with no link), then the disambiguation page includes an entry for it (with a red link or with no link, respectively). If no article mentions the topic, the topic isn't included in the disambiguation page. Clean and simple. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind that my suggested "solution" of adding a red link to an existing article, so that the entry on the DAB page would comply with the DAB rules, presupposes that the topic was notable. As you say, adding a link does not, per se, make the target notable. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The trouble with 'clean and simple' rules, much as I understand JHunterJ's preference for them. I'm not persuaded, either, that dab pages are only about navigation, and it is not future Wikipedia I am concerned about here but current users, since Wikipedia is a work in progress and there are still big gaps. It's OK so long as it isn't treated as a strict rule, as JHunterJ says, but woe betide us if somebody decides that manual editing is too big a task and they can automate it! --AJHingston (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it is permissible to have an entry in which the ambiguous term is not a redlink and only a blue link in the description. In that case, the blue link should contain information about the ambiguous entry. This approach works for entries that are unlikely to ever have a separate article, but which nonetheless are ambiguous and have verifiable information available in Wikipedia. Some editors prefer to create a redirect in such cases, but where it is unlikely that there will ever be a separate article, that just seems unnecessary. If there is potential for such an article to exist, then it should meet the criteria for WP:DABRL or create a redirect and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. Disambiguation pages are not project pages for listing possible topics that might be developed into articles. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
AJHingston, you misspelled "current consensus" as "JHunterJ's preference" there. I'm not persuaded, either, that there is consensus to change dab pages from their navigational purpose. And please don't misquote me -- I didn't say "it isn't treated as a strict rule", I said "this isn't too strict a rule"; the meanings are different. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I didn't mean to personalise this. The trouble with 'current consensus' is that it's always fine until one comes to hard examples. And I have more of a prejudice against stubs than many people for whom that is the obvious solution. --AJHingston (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait; you mean those are two different things?  :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope they're pretty close, publicly. Where my own preferences have differed from the resulting consensus (e.g., name holder lists), I try to check them at the login door. Despite what it may look like, I really don't seek drama here. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
AJHingston, maybe I missed the core issue then, but if it's the creation of or quality of stubs that's the rub, WT:STUB would be the place? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Clarification for editors not familiar with redlinks in dab pages would be helpful, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New Era Building. In particular JHunterJ if you could comment in support of idea that an all redlink dab page is okay (as long as all items are valid article topics and are supported properly by bluelinks), which exact topic was discussed here previously Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 21#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages, I would appreciate it. --doncram 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disam page as termination point

(My archive check did not uncover this as a topic, but my check was not exhaustive.)

Certain disam pages have a sentence or two at the top defining the matter at hand. I, as a page author, want to link to that defining sentence. That, and only that.

But elsewhere on the disam page are all of the "May also refer to"s. So, those WP editors who specialize in disambiguation see a problem here, when none exists. So they fix the author's "mistake" by switching his link to the disam page itself (something general) to a "May also" page (something specific). This then introduces an actual error into the author's original page.

I see this occurrence not often, but from time to time.

I want to see a marker of some kind on a disam page which means "It is ok to terminate here. A link here does not automatically need to be made more precise." In some cases, yes; in some cases, no.

When in doubt, don't fool around with the author's work since an author might know more than a disambiguator from time to time.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First, there is a way to do this. It is called an "intentional disambiguation link" and discussed at WP:INTDABLINK.
Second, however, please consider that most of the time, linking to a disambiguation page is not desirable. If, as in your example above, you only want to link to a definition of a particular term, you might find that an interwiki link to Wiktionary would suit the purpose just fine. Don't link to the disambiguation page unless the disambiguation page itself – that is, the existence of ambiguity in the meaning of the term – is relevant to the context in which the link appears.
Although, as you say, "an author might know more than a disambiguator from time to time," it is equally true that the opposite relationship may apply in some cases. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If a disambiguation page does "have a sentence or two at the top defining the matter at hand", this is likely to be removed as part of a "cleanup" of the dab page as WP:MOSDAB does not include any such content. So it would be unwise to link to the dab page with the intention of the reader finding the definition. If you want to link to a definition, link to Wiktionary. (It might be easier for us to understand your problem if you gave us an example of the link you want to make - from which page to which dab page.) PamD (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cassandra (disambiguation)

On this page I have deleted redlinks, since by necessity a redlink does not disambiguate (Ihave no problem with redlinks but don't know why you would put them on a DAB page). There were many with more than One Blue Link. I have tried to clean it up a little but I should very much appreciate if a DAB expert here casts his or her eye over it and please revert if you think my BOLD was wrong. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You've done a lot of work here, but some of it isn't quite right. You've left a few entries with no links at all (eg C.. Trelawney, who actually has a redirect to Hogwarts_staff#Sybill_Trelawney, her gt-gt-grand-daughter), but removed legitimate redlinks like the entry for Cassandra Mortmain.
I can see your problem that the pen-name gets buried. It's caused by the excessive number of "people, real or fictional, with the given name Cassandra (but who are not known by the single name)" who should not really be on a dab page at all but if present should be in a distinct section, separating them from people (or cats etc) known only as Cassandra. Or a Cassandra (name) page could be created. (Probably should be - the name info box is inappropriate for a dab page). I haven't got the stamina to work through all the problems with this page right now, but it certainly isn't quite right at the moment. PamD (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I just edited it pretty heavily. You are right: IMHO we should change Cassandra (given name) to just Cassandra (name) and include not only given names but any family names and assumed names and anyone known as "Cassandra" even if the name wasn't given to them. Chrisrus (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Are there surname-holders? I didn't find any, so I named it the way given-name articles are typically named. People who are known by the single name "Cassandra" are ambiguous with the title and get listed on the disambiguation page regardless of the presence of an anthroponymy list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinistral and dextral

This is clearly not a proper disambiguation page at all, containing no links to ambiguously named articles, but the self-appointed guardians of the page seem intent on thwarting any effort to fix it. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I fear this could get ugly. bd2412 T 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add an explanatory link to Google Personalized Search in the Is there a primary topic? section:

(NOTE: adding &pws=0 to the google search string eliminates personal search bias)

--87.79.229.232 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --87.79.229.232 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I noticed a discussion on the village pump that pertains to Redlinks and references in dab pages, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Allow_the_inclusion_of_references_and_redlinks_in_disambiguation_pages. GB fan please review my editing 15:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gender and sports and PRIMARYTOPIC

I started a discussion on the Village Pump that editors here might find of interest. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Gender and sports and PRIMARYTOPIC. I welcome your comments. Thanks! Powers T 14:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I got one comment. Anyone else? Powers T 14:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dab pages are not cheap

A link to a new essay WP:Disambiguations are cheap was added to the See Also section. Unlike redirects, though, disambiguation pages are not "cheap". Unlike redirects, rather than seamlessly taking you to an article they displace an article that would be using a title, causing readers to have to click through. They also require considerably more maintenance; I've spent many hours cleaning up dab pages. They can also attract bad wikilinks that need to be cleaned up, either when the dab page is created or over time. And they take up more space than redirects. Are dab pages often necessary? Yes, of course. But they are not cheap. While the first part of the essay is mostly unobjectionable, the advice in the last section to "When in doubt" create a dab page, is very bad advice in my opinion. The essay can be changed of course, even its title, but the concept and phrase "Disambiguations are cheap" does not reflect consensus, in my opinion, and should not appear on this prominent guidelines page. Station1 (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A similar view is expressed at WT:Disambiguations are cheap. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree dab pages are not cheap, but essays are not supposed to necessarily represent the consensus opinion - that's why they're essays. However, in general, I think it's appropriate to link to any essays relevant to the topic of the WP page in question. After all consensus can change, and linking to essays that are in the minority opinion at first can facilitate such change, and that's a good thing. Keep. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Then it should be conspicuously identified as a non-consensus view; otherwise, linking to it from this page would give a misleading impression. But this is going to put the onus on others of us, in practice, to write an essay stating the countervailing considerations. It's not helpful, and the use of the word "cheap" frankly is offensive. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point... the essay doesn't detract from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all. The main point of it, as I read it, is that compared to having no links to eponymous topics at all, having a disambiguation page is a good idea. We still have many articles where disambiguation is required in the real world, but is missing because someone wrote a single article at an ambiguous title and nobody bothered to fix it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain I fully follow that, but there's no question that dab pages are sometimes necessary, and therefore sometimes a good thing. But there is a cost, sometimes significant. To say 'when in doubt, include' because they are "cheap", incorrectly encourages editors to add them unnecessarily without thinking about the downside. The concept that 'dabs pages are cheap' has zero consensus, to the best of my knowledge, and therefore shouldn't appear on this guidelines page using that title. The link has now been removed by another editor, so the immediate concern is abated. Essays "that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace". I may try to edit and[I've tried to edit it and may] rename it to see if it can be useful. Station1 (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The standard for "found to contradict widespread consensus" is very high. It would pretty much have to say exactly the opposite of some widely supported policy or guideline, not merely say something unpopular. We'd userfy an essay that says people should never cite any sources, or that disruption made Wikipedia better, or things like that, but probably not something like this. (If you want to try it, such discussions normally happen at MFD [which I identify as the common forum, not necessarily the ideal forum.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I agree with that. I don't want to userfy or delete and probably should have left that sentence out. I've since edited the essay so that it better reflects consensus I hope. My main concern was that the phrase/link "disambiguations are cheap" not appear on the guidelines page as if it represented consensus, because I think that much does contradict consensus. My original intention was simply to remove the newly-added link from this guideline page, nothing more, and I started this section only when I was reverted. Station1 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic and Commons

Hi, editors here may be interested in the discussion at commons:Commons talk:Naming categories#Disambiguation and .22primary topics.22 (and a number of related discussions mentioned there). Short version is if Commons should make any use of the primary topic concept - and if so, how specifically to interpret it with regards to location categories. The locations in question aren't really the sort to cause disputes here, but ones which in WP terms have a clear primary topic.

As the location categories in question relate to English-language places, enwp is the most relevant wikipedia, as enwp users are most likely to be affected by changes on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice: Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination, which is used on dab pages such as A1 (disambiguation) etc. has again been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Template:Letter-NumberCombination. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Separation name from other, same spelled

The separation of names from other uses of the same spelled word is horrible. Few days ago I created a page about a Burnet-t-, ended up at Burnet (disambiguation), and could not find it today. And this is without knowing if it's a name/surname/family name: I just don't get it. If I type X, I expect either a dab-page X or a final article X. And I am an editor. What would a reader experience. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the nature of your concern. Why would you expect to find David Burnett (politician) at Burnet (disambiguation)? Burnet (disambiguation) includes a link to the dab page Burnett (disambiguation) (redirect) in the See also section, and the latter page has an entry for Burnett (surname), which is where one would expect to find David Burnett (politician). But that link would appear nowhere unless someone puts it there (something I've taken care of). But again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not ask for "solving" it (which, as you self describe, you did not because could not). This is:
  1. Yesterday I created a page with someone/something called Burnett, and today I cannot find it by typing Burnett.
  2. Remove the nonsensiccal difference between same spele name and non-name. I type a word in the WP search box, and I expect a complete page, be it a dab page. Nowhere in my logic I should know beforehand if the word I type is a name (eh, surname? family name), or a thing. Just give me the options (dab).
  3. Now I am an editor. Just think of what a reader experiences.
  4. Solving the incident or explaining it is not what I asked for. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like the search index falling behind, nothing to do with disambiguation. See WP:VPT#Delay in updating the search index. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No. No search. Just this blue wikilink: Burnett does not lead to the page about Burnett I created (of course I could point to it by now here). -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, Burnett was created 18:25, 28 December 2004 by Pedant (talk · contribs). I can't find any evidence of you creating pages yesterday; your only "new" pages in the last three days have either been redirects due to page moves, some templates, or pages in User talk: space. But go back four days, to 23 August, and you created David Burnett (politician). This article is not going to show up as an autocomplete by typing "Burnett" in the search box, because "Burnett" isn't the first word (see Help:Searching), but it will show up if you type "David". If you try entering "Burnett" and click on the magnifying glass, you'll probably get "Results 1–20 of 6,984 for Burnett", and it's not likely that your article will be among the first twenty. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Burnett is a disambiguation page; it includes Burnett (surname) which has a note to say it includes a list of people with the surname. That includes your David Burnett (politician). I don't see what your problem is. PamD 20:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, me writing "yesterday" is not literal. So what, no reader looking for a Burnett would bother. The point is: I type "Burnett" in the WP 'search' box, and it is not leading to the page I created, and with a correct name. Not even through dab or redirects. (Now maybe this incident may be solved by now, but not the principle). -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Since we are supposed to understand dab here, I'll add this. Of course before creating the page about my Burnett yesterday I searched for it (just search "Burnett" on WP should do, innit). No hit. I ended up at this page: David Burnet (disambiguation) (curious really). The true correct page Burnett did not show, whatever today's edits. And, to spoil my fun, I tried to find or type a good hatnote. Another dab-is-logic-and-everyone-knows-that dayspoiler.-DePiep (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If you type "Burnett" in the search box, you get to Burnett which links to Burnett (surname) which links to David Burnett (politician). People with a surname do not belong in the main part of a disambiguation page for the word which is the surname, as they are not usually known by the surname alone. They are sometimes included in a list of "people with the surname", but if this is long it is split off into another page (see MOS:DABNAME). A major problem with these surname lists is that they are incomplete: Burnett (surname) lists about 60 people, but All pages with titles containing Burnett (ie {{intitle|Burnett}}) found about 100 before I gave up counting. It's a huge pity that WP cannot provide an index by sortkey for all biographical articles, like the list here for living people, as that would provide access by surname for all of them. PamD 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Correct. What I did was: search "David Burnet", which results (even now) in David Burnet. Not Burnett. The page even has a person Burnett, so acceptably clear to me then. Of course the link to David Burnett (politician) is added only recently. After creating, I still suspected that the page could exist under a different name (like: DB (judge). -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the current situation, as from last night, is ideal: "David Burnett" is the name of two people, but now leads to a dab page called David Burnet. It might have been better left with the photojournalist as primary usage, the politician linked from there with a hatnote, and perhaps a {{distinguish}} on that page and the Burnet dab page to remind people of the other spelling. And then by the same logic there should be redirects or hatnotes to connect every possible mis-spelling of Burnet(t), and I doubt that's the case. Jacob Burnett, George Burnet etc. Nice little project for someone to do: make sure that all these variants reach their destination. But you could do the same for so many other names - Davi(e)s, Stev/phenson, etc. PamD 08:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Visoko

Please see Talk:Visoko#BiH town primary topic?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FIAF

Hi, I am not familar with the rules of the en.wp as this is not my homewiki. My question would be: Is FIAF supposed to be a a disambig. page? If yes, can someone fix that page? thx --Teilzeittroll (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Teilzeittroll (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, I would like for someone to please move the actual article "School of Tropical Medicine" to the "Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine" (The proper title) since there are various shools of Tropical Medicine, therefore making the current title a misleading one. Then I would like someone to convert the "School of Tropical School" into a disambiguation page which would include: School of Tropical Medicine (Puerto Rico), London School of Tropical Medicine, the Harvard School of Tropical Medicine and the Calcutta School School of Tropical Medicine. I tried doing it myself, but some one undid it and I would like to avoid a misunderstanding in the event that I am wrong in my suggestion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid those changes because of WP:TWODABS: there are only two articles that could conceivably use this title, and one of them (the Calcutta school) clearly appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Therefore, disambiguation by hatnotes is sufficient, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure TWODABS applies here. "School of Tropical Medicine" is essentially a generic name, not unlike a "School of Dentistry" or "School of Engineering". There are couple of other schools of topical medicine with articles or redirects with the form PLACE School of Tropical Medicine. For example, London School of Tropical Medicine and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. There is also the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. And it appears there may have been more previously that have since been renamed or repurposed, such as a Harvard School of Tropical Medicine[17]. Whether all of these require a disambiguation page or are partial title matches is hard to say, but it seems wrong to imply that Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine and School of Tropical Medicine (Puerto Rico) are the only articles with content possibly ambiguous with the generic school name. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was relying on the disambiguation page that User:Marine 69-71 created, which only listed these two articles; I probably should have investigated more thoroughly before acting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It might make more sense to redirect School of Tropical Medicine to Tropical medicine, analogous to how School of Engineering or School of Medicine or School of Dentistry redirect to the subject article. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_34&oldid=1142541095"